HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5338
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5338)
Finance Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/2/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Referral of Colleagues Memo regarding Animal Services
Title: Discussion of Colleagues Memo from June 16, 2014 Regarding Local
Animal Services
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Finance Committee defer this item to a meeting after April 2015 to
allow the City Auditor to publish the results of Animal Services audit and the City Manager’s
Office continue to engage the stakeholders and interest groups of the Animal Services division
with the consulting of Geoff Ball & Associates.
Background
In the aftermath of the Great Recession period and due to the withdrawal of a partner agency,
discussions about Animal Services staffing and revenue models came before the Policy and
Services Committee on May 10, 2012 and the Finance Committee on May 15, 2012 . During
these intense Fiscal Year 2013 budget discussions Council rejected the staff proposal to
outsource the animal shelter and services. On July 23, 2012, City Council approved changes to
the municipal fee schedule related to animal services and expenditure reductions to meet a
$449,105 net cost reduction for the fiscal year. During Council discussions, it was expected that
over the next several years, the program would work its way towards cost ne utrality.
Subsequent to Council’s approval, a variety of operational changes and enhancements were
implemented in Fiscal Year 2013 to ensure that Animal Services was positioned to respond to
community demands while to maintaining a high-level of service to the community within the
approved expenditure plan. This included engaging a stakeholder group, expanding operating
hours, expanding vaccination and clinic services, and making changes to the field service
staffing models, resulting in a net cost of approximately $420,000 for the fiscal year, which
included the use of one-time donation monies. In Fiscal Year 2014, due to unforeseen staffing
issues, the division was forced to close the spay and neuter clinic which negatively impacted
revenues. As indicated on the table below, total revenues for Fiscal Year 2014 were $435,000
which was $853,259 less than 2013 and $562,471 less than 2012. Obviously, the program was
heading in the wrong direction.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Towards the end of the fiscal year, on June 16, 2014, City Council approved a Colleagues Memo
in response to a proposal from the Palo Alto Humane Society (Attachment A) and forward ed
the item to the Finance Committee.
Discussion
The proposal stated that Palo Alto Humane Society (PAHS) would “build a new, state-of-the-art
animal services center for Palo Alto. The Palo Alto Humane Society would fund the construction
of a state-of-the-art facility and would subsequently manage the shelter and provide related
community services and outreach; such services in addition to animal sheltering would include
dog training, dog park recreation, an education center and programs, housing for special needs
animals, a spay-neuter clinic, and a wellness clinic. PAHS estimates the cost of a new center for
animal services at $10–$12 million, to be raised by PAHS. The City would provide the land as it
does currently; the suggested footprint for the facility would be two acres. In the partnership,
the City would continue to fund and manage mandated animal control services.”
On November 14, 2014, the City received a revised proposal (Attachment B) from the Palo Alto
Humane Society withdrawing the offer to build a state-of-the-art-facility and focusing on only
on education and community programs. These are programs such as “Critter Clubs, Mow Wow
Animals, Animals Everywhere, PAWS 2 PAHS, Kiddies 2 Kitties, Service Learning Program, Spay -
Neuter Assistance, Veterinary Assistance, Obedience training, Grief counseling, and Volunteer
programs.” Further details regarding these programs can be found in Attachment B. The PAHS
revised proposal stems from two community workshops they held which had a goal of creating
a community-based vision for a new shelter.
After the June 16, 2014 City Council meeting, the City Manager’s Office began meeting with the
various stakeholders of Animal Services. This is because there are numerous stakeholder groups
and many passionate citizens concerned about animal services, in addition to PAHS. On
September 9, 2014 the office entered into a contract with Geoff Ball & A ssociates to work with
stakeholders and provide a preliminary perspectives and alternatives assessment. Dr. Ball
works in a variety of settings with a wide range of clients in situations that are often complex,
technical, cross-organizational. Dr. Ball surveyed internal and external stakeholders to assist the
City Manager with preliminary work in advance of the Finance Committee. Attachment C is the
list of surveyed and non-surveyed stakeholders and interest groups. The survey work is a
preliminary assessment to determine problems and solutions as seen by all stakeholders as well
as provide insights into next steps. The results are not a final .
Elements of Dr. Ball’s work are attached in two graphics (Attachment D & E). Attachment D
identifies the major activities starting from the animal control officer’s work in the field to
eventual animal adoption. The activities include: screening, animal shelter activities, outreach
and marketing to the general public, and creating opportunities for interesting adopt ers to
interact with the animals. The interviews also highlight the importance of foster care, rescue
activities focused around specific breeds, and collaboration with other shelters. Attachment E
City of Palo Alto Page 3
highlights common themes generated from the preliminary survey work. These areas of focus
are identified under the headings of approaches, principles, measurement, setting,
organization, connection, and collaboration. Attachment E describes the key points of the
themes. Another conclusion from the City’s review as well as Dr. Ball assessment is that the key
local players are the Palo Alto Humane Society, Friends of Palo Alto Animal Services, Palo Alto
Animal Services Volunteers, Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority, Peninsula Humane Society,
Human Society of Silicon Valley, the County of Santa Clara and our contract cities of Los Altos
and Los Altos Hills (all of whom have interests and may be part of any solutions).
FY15 Financial Position & Performance Metrics Update
Below are the revenues and expenses for the last several fiscal years. Attachment F also
highlights revenue, volume and average revenue at the program level going back to 2001.
FY 2012
Actuals
FY 2013
Actuals
FY 2014
Actuals
FY 2015
Budget
FY 2015
Year-to-Date
(Through October)
Expenses 1,797,022 1,708,314 1,328,403 1,571,461 494,489 (31% of budget)
Revenue 997,471 1,288,259 435,000 660,520 237,110 (36% of budget)
Net Cost 799,551 420,055 893,403 910,941 257,379
Next Steps
Staff recommends that no action is taken until the City Auditor completes the audit of Animal
Services. As part of the City Auditor’s Fiscal Year 2015 Work Plan an audit of Animal Services is
scheduled for completion in April 2015. The audit will evaluate and compare best practices and
the efficiency and effectiveness of services provided, including whether Animal Services
receives all revenues to which it is entitled and, whether improvements can be made in
operations to allow the program to break even with the costs of services provided. Staff
believes that the audit will provide City Council with further financial and programmatic data
which will advance the decision making process.
Given that potentially dramatic changes will need to be made in how animal services are
provided, staff expects to continue some of the stakeholder outreach in the new year.
Staff believes the convergence of the audit data and public meeting outcomes will provide City
Council with useful information prior to their Fiscal Year 2016 budget hearings in May and June
2015. At the Finance Committee meeting, staff will propose alternatives based on the
outcomes of the audit and public meetings for Council consideration.
Attachments:
Attachment A - Colleagues Memo & Palo Alto Humane Society Proposal (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Attachment B - Revised Palo Alto Humane Society Proposal dated November 14, 2014
(PDF)
Attachment C: List of Stakeholders (PDF)
Attachment D - Work Flow Diagram (PDF)
Attachment E - Themes (PDF)
Attachment F: Additional Financial & Metrics for Animal Services (PDF)
Attachment G: 5-10-12 Staff Report (PDF)
Attachment H: 5-10-12 Minutes (PDF)
Attachment I: 5-15-12 Finance Committee Agenda (PDF)
Attachment J: 5-15-12 Finance Minutes (PDF)
Attachment K: 7-23-12 Staff Report (PDF)
Attachment L: 7-23-12 Minutes (PDF)
City of Palo Alto
COLLEAGUES MEMO
June 16, 2014 Page 1 of 2
(ID # 4865)
DATE: June 16, 2014
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Council Member Holman, Council Member Klein, Council Member
Schmid, Council Member Berman
SUBJECT: COLLEAGUES' MEMO REGARDING LOCAL ANIMAL SERVICES
Goal:
Continue to provide animal services locally with improved economies and an improved facility.
Background and Discussion:
Palo Alto has had local community animal services since 1908 when the Palo Alto Humane
Society was founded. The Humane Society started the first animal shelter in town in 1927. They
managed the shelter until 1972 when the operation was taken over by the City and Palo Alto
Animal Services was formed. Animal Services currently offers spay and neuter, adoption,
licensing, lost and found, and rescue services to the Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills
communities.
With Mt. View’s decision in 2012 to end its partnership with the City’s Animal Services,
an annual $470,000 funding gap threatened the closure of the local facility. The community
made its desire to keep animal services in Palo Alto known by crowding Council Chambers with
supporters. As part of the adoption of the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget, the Council, after
recommendations by both the Policy & Services and Finance Committees, directed staff to
increase revenue by approximately $185,000 annually and reduce costs by approximately
$285,000 a year for FY 2013 with goals for further revenue increases and reduced expenses, to
close the gap caused by Mountain View’s departure to totally eliminate the amount paid by
the City for Animal Services by Fiscal Year 2016.
Palo Alto Humane Society has put together a proposal to form a public –private partnership with
the City. The Humane Society proposes to fundraise to build a new, state-of-the-art animal
services center for Palo Alto and manage the new facility with enhanced services at lower cost
to the City. According to the proposal, the City would continue to provide the land as well as
manage animal control as it does currently. The new facility and additional services that are
being proposed could potentially be a means to attract adjacent communities who now
June 16, 2014 Page 2 of 2
(ID # 4865)
contract as far away as San Martin, a distance creating real challenges to reuniting owner and
pet.
According to the proposal, public-private projects, such as Palo Alto Humane Society is coming
forward with have proven to be successful endeavors in other communities “nationwide and in
neighboring Peninsula communities”.
Recommendation:
We recommend that the Council forward the Proposal from Palo Alto Humane Society to the
Finance or Policy & Services Committee as Council determines for prompt review
Staff Input/Impact
Over the past two years, staff has engaged the regional animal care community to identify
improvements to the efficiency of shelter operations and explore potential partnership
opportunities. Through this process several high-level conversations have taken place with
various entities about potential public-private partnerships ranging from collaboration on
animal adoptions to assistance with shelter management. There is a strong interest from the
non-profit animal care community in partnering with the City to ensure the long -term viability
and success of Palo Alto Animal Services. In addition, several current and near-term operational
challenges, including declining revenues and pending key staff retirements, have created a need
to explore immediate solutions for a shelter management partnership with possible partners.
Given the interest from potential partners, current operational needs, and staff’s belief that
there are possible coalitions to be formed among the interested parties, staff was looking at
issuing an RFP for on-going management of the shelter in the near term with additional options
for capital improvement partnerships.
The FY 2014 expected General Fund subsidy is approximately $850,000, primarily due to
regional contracts revenue adjustments and the year-long absence of the public spay and
neuter clinic due to staff vacancies.
The Humane Society Proposal discussion may occur in the context of other alternatives to put the
Animal Shelter on sustainable footing.
Minimal staff impact at this time.
October 2013
Proposal to the City of Palo Alto
From the Palo Alto Humane Society
Regarding the future of Palo Alto Animal Services
The Palo Alto Humane Society proposes a joint public–private partnership for the provision
of animal services for Palo Alto and contracting cities. The Palo Alto Humane Society, as the
private partner, would bring services and added value to the City of Palo Alto as outlined
below. The Palo Alto Humane Society regards this as an opportune time for a proposal to
partner and pool animal-welfare resources as the City begins to weigh decisions on capital
improvements to and location of its Animal Services facility.
The Palo Alto Humane Society (PAHS) makes the following proposal for a public–private
partnership. The proposal is designed to enhance the services presently provided to the
community and is built on the precept that animal sheltering and animal control services must
remain located in Palo Alto to best serve the community. PAHS is also willing to discuss other
ideas in order to find a partnership that is right for both parties and the communities served. In
broad outlines, PAHS proposes:
To build a new, state-of-the-art animal services center for Palo Alto. The Palo Alto Humane Society
would fund the construction of a state-of-the-art facility and would subsequently manage
the shelter and provide related community services and outreach; such services in addition
to animal sheltering would include dog training, dog park recreation, an education center
and programs, housing for special needs animals, a spay-neuter clinic, and a wellness clinic.
PAHS estimates the cost of a new center for animal services at $10–$12 million, to be
raised by PAHS. The City would provide the land as it does currently; the suggested
footprint for the facility would be two acres. In the partnership, the City would continue to
fund and manage mandated animal control services.
A new approach to animal services. Private–public partnerships now undergird animal
services in many communities nationwide and in neighboring Peninsula communities. These
partnerships have created community centers that draw and engage the public, encourage
adoptions, and keep animal surrenders to a minimum. Dog training, dog parks, behaviorists,
education programs, and modern sheltering facilities all add value to the life of a community
and promote the well being of a community’s animals. The Palo Alto Humane Society is
interested in offering these proven added-value aspects to the Palo Alto community. PAHS
wants to create an exciting place in Palo Alto that parallels centers in other communities and
shines as a civic centerpiece for the City. The residents have shown their passion for animal
welfare and would welcome a new and exciting vision for their shelter.
What the Palo Alto Humane Society can offer in a public–private partnership. PAHS
can bring resources and vision to a partnership for a new shelter. PAHS is an established
community organization and can bring name recognition and 100 years of history to bear in
harnessing resources. Its animal shelter committee consists of proven Bay Area shelter
builders and fundraising professionals. PAHS has unique programs in veterinary assistance;
annually PAHS underwrites the spaying and neutering of approximately 2,000 homeless
animals and pets belonging to financially disadvantaged people, and assists pet owners on
fixed incomes with management of veterinary expenses. PAHS provides humane education
to the public schools through its longstanding “Animals Everywhere” program and its new
“Mow Wow Animals” (www.mowwow.org) curriculum designed to aid teachers in
October 2013
complying with the character education goals of the California Education Code. PAHS also
provides a voice for animals, most recently advocating successfully to the City Council on
behalf of the city animal shelter and spay-neuter clinic to prevent closure and outsourcing of
these vital public services.
Benefits to the City of Palo Alto. A major benefit to the City is that PAHS can run the
sheltering function at lower cost, as PAHS is not subject to the City’s salary structure. In
addition, the cost of mandated sheltering services would be predictable, with a contracted fee
with set review and increase points, making budgeting much easier for the City. Another
advantage to the City is that this partnership would play on each organization's areas of
strength. PAHS is better able to handle sheltering and animal care, while the City is better able
to perform the animal control function, given its strength in law and code enforcement.
An exciting synergy. Together the City and the Palo Alto Humane Society can offer much
more than we can separately. PAHS has the vision, expertise, and fundraising capacity for
additional services, and the City has the land for a shelter and the expertise and funding for
animal control services. Through partnership, a modern, state-of-the-art animal services
center can be built that serves as a thriving civic institution for the community. The City of
Palo Alto has successful public–private partnerships in various aspects of its services and
operations. These partnerships have proven to be viable, and PAHS proposes that a joint
effort in animal sheltering will bring current animal services up to the level of other services.
An established tradition. A partnership between the Palo Alto Humane Society and the
City of Palo Alto is not a new idea. The Palo Alto Humane Society has deep roots in the
community and a history of program building. Founded in 1908, PAHS created Palo Alto’s
first shelter in 1927 and subsequently managed shelters for the City for close to 50 years.
After the establishment of Palo Alto Animal Services, PAHS continued its relationship with
the City and for many years provided humane education and night and weekend emergency
animal services. Presently, PAHS maintains a close relationship with Animal Services and is a
major client at the spay-neuter clinic. PAHS is a major resource for animal welfare in the
Palo Alto community.
Going forward. The Palo Alto Humane Society requests the opportunity to present and
discuss this proposal with Council members and staff. PAHS is excited about the
possibilities and believes the Palo Alto community will be supportive of such a venture.
Please note that this proposal is for purposes of discussion. It is not an offer of any kind
and is non-binding in all respects.
Submitted by: Carole Hyde, Executive Director, Palo Alto Humane Society
Contact information: Office: 650-424-1901; carole.hyde@paloaltohumane.org
To: Council Members Berman, Burt, Holman, and Kniss
From: Carole Hyde, Executive Director, Palo Alto Humane Society
Date: November 14, 2014
Palo Alto Humane Society (PAHS) is presenting to the City Council Finance Committee
the following reconsidered proposal for partnership in providing animal services:
Palo Alto Humane Society proposes to partner with the City of Palo Alto to
develop and add an education/community center to the existing Palo Alto
Animal Services facility and to provide PAHS’ established and recognized
program of school education, information outreach, community activities, and
spay-neuter and veterinary funding assistance for the community.
Background
The City of Palo Alto’s animal shelter needs to be modernized. This was recognized by
the City in 2008 when it developed plans to build a new animal shelter, and several years
prior, when it held discussions about modernizing and expanding the current facility.
Modern shelters are now vibrant community centers. In addition to featuring friendly and
attractive animal housing and veterinary facilities, progressive shelters engage, inform,
and interest residents. A Children’s Museum with interactive technology-based pet care
and information modules, Family Pet Care “Festivals” with animal art activities, speakers,
animal care demos, and movies, Dog Parks, Lending Libraries, and School Field Trips are
some examples of community engagement activities possible with a new vision. With
enhanced space and staffing these types of dynamic programs and services can be
offered to our community at the current Palo Alto Animal Services site.
Revised Proposal
PAHS’ revision of its original proposal to the Council is based on several considerations.
In the fall of 2014 Palo Alto Humane Society held community meetings (notes attached)
and other discussions with interested parties, with the goal of creating a community-
based vision for a new shelter. Modernization of the existing facility was flagged in these
discussions as important. Features such as better and more attractive housing for
adoptive animals provide a modern environment and result in more willingness of the
public to engage the shelter. At the same time, the features most frequently mentioned
as desirable were programs and services that constitute a Community Program:
education, information outreach, volunteer and community service opportunities, social
activities, spay-neuter and veterinary funding assistance, dog obedience training, foster
programs, etc.
Palo Alto Humane Society proposes to offer a community program at the shelter.
Community engagement is the strength of this organization and can constitute a vital
new component, now lacking at the shelter. This partnership is suitable to PAHS’
organizational strengths, staffing, financial depth, and current and recent programs. We
believe the future of Animal Services is best served if the shelter is operated by the City
and made vibrant with a community program provided by Palo Alto Humane Society.
What PAHS Can Offer To This Partnership
Education Program
PAHS’ established, exciting, and diverse program includes:
Critter Clubs, a school-based club engaging teachers, students and parents in the needs of
animals in their communities (supported by the Palo Alto Weekly Holiday Fund)
Mow Wow Animals, a web-based curriculum targeted at 100,000 elementary school students
and their teachers in fulfillment of the California humane education requirement
Animals Everywhere, a program of presentations on responsible animal care for schools,
service clubs, hospitals, rehabilitation facilities, other organizations
PAWS 2 PAHS, canine-accompanied teaching in schools at all grade levels, focused on
animal care, interacting with animals, animal welfare issues
Kiddies 2 Kitties, an animal shelter reading program for challenged children
Service Learning Program, community service opportunities for area teens and schools
Community Program
Spay-Neuter Assistance, an annual program of $50,000-$100,000 to underwrite spay-
neuter surgeries at the city clinic for low-income and homeless animals
Veterinary Assistance, an annual program of $30,000-$40,000 to help low-income
residents (disabled, elderly, veterans in need) with unexpected veterinary costs
Obedience training, critical to permanent homing for shelter dogs
Grief counseling, about lost and deceased pets
Volunteer programs, to help with needs at the animal shelter such as pre-weaned kitten
care and fostering animals for adoption
Palo Alto Humane Society Brand
PAHS’ 106-year history and name recognition can bring additional interest and traffic
to the shelter, providing increased exposure and adoption possibilities for the shelter
animals, increased use of the spay/neuter and vaccination services at the city clinic,
and expanded involvement in education programs and activities. Its fund raising
capacity, local relationships, and established database will assist in procuring funds
for initiatives and programs at the center’s new and exciting Community Wing.
Funding
Palo Alto Humane Society will work with the City to develop a plan for financing the
building of an Education/Community Center which could include, but not be limited to,
developing a capital campaign in partnership with the City, Palo Alto Humane Society,
local businesses, corporate donors, Friends of the Palo Alto Animal Shelter, and private
citizens. Engaging the broad Palo Alto community, in both the monetary and visionary
investment, will secure participation of the community in their new center and in the
vibrant new programs and services the center can offer.
Palo Alto Humane Society
New Animal Shelter Discussion
Monday, September 8, 7:00-8:30 p.m.
Offices of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto (650-493-9300)
Purpose of the focus group
Palo Alto Humane Society (PAHS) held the first of a series of planned community focus
groups to create a community-based vision of a new animal center for Palo Alto.
Attendees represented stakeholder groups and also included interested members of the
Palo Alto and Los Altos communities (a list of participants is attached). The discussion
was moderated by former Palo Alto Mayor Peter Drekmeier. The ideas generated will
help Palo Alto Humane Society prepare for discussion of a public-private partnership
proposal with the city Finance Committee.
The discussion was oriented to three questions: 1) what are the community’s needs for
animal sheltering and providing for animal welfare? 2) what do we like about the
services currently provided by the municipal shelter Palo Alto Animal Services? 3) what
would we like to see in a new animal center?
Concepts governing a new animal services center
Several general concepts were brought forward. A new shelter should:
Serve as a community center, offering activities for people and their animals, and
this will in turn promote the adoption of the shelter animals
Serve as an education center and also take information and advice on animal
welfare and ownership out to the community
Offer proven revenue generating services such as grooming and boarding
(a list of services follows in this report) that will encourage the public to
participate in and use the animal center
Help less fortunate neighbor cities with educational and wellness resources
Be environmentally friendly, i.e., “green”
Be located if possible in a visible and accessible place
retain the friendly community feeling of the present shelter
be appropriately sized for the Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills
communities and retain a welcome feeling
Components of a new shelter
Space: expanded sheltering capacity
Space: exercise for shelter animals (including open space/exercise area for
adoptive cats and indoor dog park)
Space: open interior space per contemporary architecture
Spay/neuter clinic
Wellness clinic
Boarding and grooming facilities
Education center
Community and public rooms (such as café)
Field services (animal control)
Public visibility
Major volunteer corps
Services and programs for shelter animals
Wellness services
Fostering to adopt
Professional socialization of shelter animals
Expanded volunteer programs to promote kennel care, adoption, and animal
welfare outreach
Pre-weaned kitten programs
Field services (animal control, microchipping, licensing, vaccinations)
Services and programs to engage the community (and revenue generating)
Wellness clinic with ambulance services
Grief counseling
Summer camps/ Birthday parties
School and community service programs
Café and dog park
Professional training for residents’ dogs /Grooming
Fundraising opportunities (including Legacy Circle and ForeverCare)
Boarding (to include crisis or low-income short-term boarding to prevent
surrender of animals)
An Education Center was identified as a major need; it could serve as a vehicle
for engaging the public through offerings of activities, programs, and rental
space, and therefore as a major source of revenue for the shelter operations.
Participants in the discussion will receive these notes from the meeting.
Participants
Peter Drekmeier, Policy Director, Tuolumne River Trust; former mayor of Palo Alto
Dolores Arnold, PAHS Board of Directors; co-founder, Stanford Cat Network
Leonor Delgado, PAHS Humane Educator
Wendy Eilers, Secretary, PAHS Board of Directors
Colleen Gerstner, Director of Sales & Marketing, The Sheraton and Westin Palo Alto
Margot Goldberg, Treasurer, Friends of the Palo Alto Animal Shelter (FoPAAS)
Patty Hurley, professional educator, Los Altos
Carole Hyde, Executive Director, PAHS
Jennifer Knapp, Attorney, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati; Chair, PAHS Board of Directors
Dianne Lynch, Vice President, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.
Rebecca Marsh, Office Coordinator, PAHS
Jeremy Robinson, FoPAAS Board of Directors
David Rutan, PAHS Board of Directors; CEO, Wizdom On Wheels
Connie Urbanski, Superintendent, Palo Alto Animal Services, City of Palo Alto
Terri Valenti, FoPAAS Board of Directors
Michael Weed, Real Estate Attorney, Palo Alto
Scottie Zimmerman, FoPAAS Board of Directors
Palo Alto Humane Society
New Animal Shelter Discussion
Thursday, October 2, 2014, 7:00-8:30 p.m.
Offices of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto (650-493-9300)
Purpose of the focus group
Palo Alto Humane Society (PAHS) held the second of a series of planned community
focus groups to create a community-based vision of an animal center for Palo Alto.
Attendees in this meeting are from the animal rescue community (a list of participants is
attached). The ideas generated are intended to help Palo Alto Humane Society prepare
for discussion of a public-private partnership proposal with the city council.
The discussion was oriented to two questions: 1) what do we like about the services
currently provided by the municipal shelter Palo Alto Animal Services? 2) what are the
community’s needs for animal sheltering and providing for animal welfare?
The discussion was moderated by Carol Moholt, executive director of Pacific Horticulture
Society. She is a former member of the Planning Commission of the City of Mountain View
and is a community cat caregiver.
What do we like about the services currently provided by the Palo Alto municipal shelter?
The primary interest and use of Palo Alto Animal Services expressed by the attendees is
the spay/neuter clinic; this clinic was identified as critically important to their work in mid-
Peninsula communities and neighborhoods since low-cost spay/neuter services are
essential to limiting animal numbers, and help keep animals out of the shelter. Associated
with the spay/neuter services is the low-cost vaccination clinic. Some attendees relate to
Animal Services as volunteers there (or with Friends of the Palo Alto Animal Shelter).
Several have used the adoption services at the shelter for surrender of stray animals they
have found, or for adopting an animal.
What are the community’s needs for animal sheltering and providing for animal welfare?
Since rescuers deal with numerous stray animals (essentially performing unofficial and
unpaid animal control services in the community), they expressed interest in two major
aspects of animal services:
1) Additional capacity at the Palo Alto shelter for the care and adoption of pre-weaned
and underage kittens who at present must be raised and put up for adoption by the
rescue community itself (homeless dogs are not much of a problem in Palo Alto and
Los Altos cities); and
2) Public education and outreach that will address the issues of stray and excess
animals in neighborhoods and communities themselves.
The following services and capabilities were identified as important in a new animal
services center:
Services and programs relating to the sheltering of animals
Facility/capacity for handling pre-weaned kittens
Veterinary services for animals in addition to cats and dogs (e.g., bird specialist)
Modern sheltering accommodations (i.e., not just cages, but rooms or “condos”
as well)
More accessibility/open hours (e.g., Sundays should be adoption days)
More accessibility to the spay/neuter clinic
Flexible fees/sliding scale for spay/neuter services
Accommodation of animals from overcrowded shelters for adoption through the
Palo Alto facility
Wellness services to help low-income residents and less fortunate neighbors
Volunteer activities to help with animals in the shelter, e.g., a foster program to
expand the shelter’s capacity for caring for adoptive animals
Services and programs to engage the community with the animal shelter and in animal care
Community education services and resources
Volunteer opportunities in community education
Community service opportunities and service learning programs
Marketing and advertising for the shelter, with outreach especially to local high
schools regarding volunteer and community service opportunities
Activities for Palo Alto residents and their dogs
Dog training programs
Center for events, meetings, community activities, classes, talks, etc.
Expanded shopping opportunities for purchase of supplies, gifts, toys, etc.
Meet and greet area for people and pets, to include a dog- or cat-cafe
Networks of volunteers to transport animals to the spay/neuter and vaccination
clinic for low-income or disabled residents who lack transportation (a concierge
service)
Fundraising to pay for spay/neuter surgeries for low-income pets, e.g., “Spay It
Forward,” which would encourage spay/neuter clients to pay for additional
surgeries for low-income pets
Volunteer foster program
Space for adoption days for animals in foster care
Space for adoption days for rescue organizations
Coordination between Animal Services and community programs offered by Palo
Alto Humane Society, such as adoption days for shelter animals fostered off site;
Sunday hours at the shelter
Participants in the discussion will receive these notes from the meeting.
Participants
Carol Moholt, Executive Director, Pacific Horticulture Society; former Planning
Commission member, Mountain View
Jaye Bergen, affiliated with CatWorks
Leonor Delgado, PAHS Humane Educator
Jo Hamilton, Director, Companions in Waiting
Jean Hsia, President, Peninsula CatWorks
Carole Hyde, Executive Director, PAHS
Nicola Macfarlane, affiliated with Homeless Cat Network and CatWorks
Aileen Thomas, Member, Feline Friends Network (formerly Stanford Cat Network)
Jill Thompson, Volunteer, Palo Alto Animal Services
Jane Urbach, at large community cat caregiver
Patty Winter, Non-Profit Development Consultant
External Stakeholders (Survey Group)
Palo Alto Humane Society
Friends of Palo Alto Animal Services
Palo Alto Animal Services ‐ Volunteers
Palo Alto Homeless Pets/Dogs
Humane Society Silicon Valley
City of Los Altos
City of Los Altos Hills
County of Santa Clara
Peninsula Humane Society
Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority (SVACA)
San Jose Animal Control Agency
Internal Stakeholders (Survey Group)
City Manager’s Office
City Attorney’s Office
Police Department ‐ Administration
Administrative Services Department
Office of Management & Budget
Palo Alto Animal Services ‐ Administration
Palo Alto Animal Services ‐ Animal Control
Palo Alto Animal Services ‐ Clinic
People Strategy & Operations
Service Employees International Union Local 521
Other Organizations (Non Survey Group)
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
Humane Society United States
California Animal Control Directors Association (CACDA)
State Humane Association of California
San Francisco SPCA (SFSPCA)
San Francisco Animal Care and Control
Monterey Humane Society & SPCA
Oakland Animal Services
Santa Cruz Animal Care and Control
City of Sacramento Front Street Animal Services
City of Austin Animal Services
Austin Pets Alive
Nevada Humane Society Reno
Maddie’s Fund
Guide Dogs for the Blind
Wagaroo
Tony La Russa's Animal Rescue Foundation
Best Friends
Our Pack
Bad Rap
Pooch Coach
Collaboration
with other
shelters and
other
organizations
ACO's work with:
• Lost / wandered
• Strays
• Injured and dead
• Violent / Dangerous
• Ferel
• Given up by owner
• Let loose by owner -
- abandoned
Animal Shelter
• Way Station
• Spay & Neuter
• Training
• Awareness
• Contact place
• Store - Pet Supplies
• Licensing
• Chip insertion
• Health care
• Euthanasia
Compassion Classes
• Young People
• Grieving for Pet
Contact Place
Interface with Potential
owners and general public
• Opportunity to interact
with animals
• Locations convenient to
potential adopters
• Satellites
• Exchanges with other
shelters
Administration
• Knows of variety of approaches
• Viable funding models
• Business model generation
• Models of operation
• Models of governance
• Data Models
Awareness Among
• General Public
• Potential owners
• Kids
• Social Networks
Adoption with
ongoing support
• Training
• Classes
• Counseling
• End of life
Foster Care for
short term
Rescue for
special breeds
Photos
Blogs
Apps
Shelter Health Maintenance
Draft - ANIMAL SERVICES VISION & SYSTEM MAP
Physical facility
GOALS & VALUES
• Public Awareness
• Happy animals &
happy people
• Sustained funding
• Quality facilities
• Respected Staff
• Convenient, timely
• Increase compassion
• Community Support
Sc
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
Volunteers in many aspects of the work and
programs at the shelter. Roles they can
play include:
• Exercise animals
• Play with animals
• Socialization & Training
• Fund Raise for animals
• Advocate for animal services and
animal welfare
Resources & Capabilities
Volunteer
Coordinator:
• Orient
• Train
• Sustain
Donors &
Fund
Raisers
Facilities
that
support
interaction
Socialization &
Training
Outreach &
Marketing
Public
Advocacy
Capital and Funding Stream for
Improvements
Public-‐private
partnership
Other
approaches:
Enhanced
current
model
Enhancing
revenue,
managing
costs,
keeping
affordable
Strategic
loca=on
Cohesive
and
experienced
staff
Responsive
high-‐quality
services
Transformed
An=quated
facility
Humane
treatment
for
animals
Animal
welfare
AND
public
safety
Collabora=on
among
organiza=ons
Effec=ve,
energized
volunteers
Collabora=on
with
schools
Teamwork
and
trust
Data
and
metrics
Community
engagement
Use
of
technology
&
social
media
THEMES
FROM
INTERVIEWS
2014
-‐
PALO
ALTO
ANIMAL
SERVICES
APPROACHES PRINCIPLES MEASUREMENT
SETTING ORGANIZATION CONNECTION COLLABORATION
Animal Services Data
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2839)
Policy and Services Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 5/10/2012
May 10, 2012 Page 1 of 22
(ID # 2839)
Summary Title: Animal Services Outsourcing and Other Options
Title: Consideration and Discussion of the Palo Alto Animal Services Outsourcing
and Other Cost Reduction Options
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Police
Background
California statutes require counties and municipalities to provide animal control
services for the protection of public health and safety and for the protection of
animals. The main laws are CA Health and Safety Codes 121575-121710 with a
particular emphasis on 121690 (e) - which includes the duty to maintain a "pound
system" and a "rabies control program." These laws also form the basis of the
required dog licensing program that is for monitoring of rabies vaccination
compliance. Rabies control programs include: operation of the animal shelter,
animal bite reporting and investigation, stray dog control, animal rabies
investigations, quarantine of biting dogs and cats and other animals potentially
exposed to rabies, and providing rabies shot clinics.
There are also state laws mandating policies and services related to euthanasia,
dangerous and vicious dogs, abandoned animals, animal fighting, and impound
and seizure.
In addition to mandates imposed by the State, Palo Alto has enacted local
municipal codes regulating the ownership of animals.
From 1934 to 1972, the Palo Alto's Animal Control Program consisted of Animal
Control Officers who enforced the City's Municipal Code Sections regarding the
care and keeping of animals. The City of Palo Alto opened the Animal Services and
May 10, 2012 Page 2 of 22
(ID # 2839)
Placement Center on East Bayshore Road in 1972 and began providing spay and
neuter services one year later.
In mid-1993, as a result of Santa Clara County's discontinued animal services to
municipalities, Palo Alto entered into agreements with the cities of Mountain
View, Los Altos and Los Altos Hills for regional animal control services. The
contracts with these cities included emergency animal control services, sheltering
and enforcement of State and local laws, which included dog licensing.
Adhering to the agreement’s one year termination clause, Mountain View notified
the City of Palo Alto in November 2011 of its intent to terminate its agreement
with the City and contract instead with the Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority
(SVACA), a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) with participants from the cities of Santa
Clara, Monte Sereno and Campbell. The loss of Mountain View from the shared
services agreement will result in an annual loss of approximately $470,000 in
revenue.
Other than cost savings, another factor the City of Mountain View considered for
terminating the longstanding agreement with the City of Palo Alto was the
condition of the Animal Services facility. There has been little expansion of the
Center since it was constructed and like much of the City’s infrastructure built in
the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, the building and interior amenities could be
improved.
Existing & New Facility Cost Estimates
Although costs vary to build a new facility or repurpose an existing structure, an
estimate was previously obtained to build a new 6,400 square foot facility at the
Los Altos Treatment Plant (LATP) site for approximately $7 million. Due to fiscal
concerns and competing budget priorities at the time, the City opted to complete
the most critically needed improvements to the existing building in 2010. These
included: a new roof; upgrades to the electrical, heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning systems; windows and doors were replaced; and a security system
was added. These improvements totaled approximately $1.0 million.
In comparison, the contracted facility Mountain View selected to join – Silicon
Valley Animal Control Authority (SVACA) – spent approximately $6 million on the
purchase and build-out of a 17,000 square foot building for an animal care center
May 10, 2012 Page 3 of 22
(ID # 2839)
in Santa Clara. At the time, only a portion – approximately 15,500 square feet –
was built out. SVACA’s acquisition costs were $2.45 million and the completed
construction costs were about $3.6 million. The total cost of this project was
approximately $370 per square foot and $230 per square foot for construction
only. Palo Alto’s current shelter is considerably smaller than SVACA’s, at
approximately 5,400 square feet.
Should the Council wish to build a new facility at its current location or renovate
an existing building at another location in the future, PAAS staff estimate the
need for approximately 6,750 square feet of office, clinic, and shelter space.
Currently, commercial/industrial space in Palo Alto is approximately $200-300 per
square foot and construction costs would be about $250 per square foot or $3.3-
3.7 million in total costs for a new facility. Estimates in Palo Alto are not
completely “apples to apples” as most of our building stock is older and would
require seismic and other code required improvements which may increase the
costs to outfit a similar building to SVACA in Palo Alto.
Budget
Animal Services expenditures in FY 2011 were approximately $1.71 million, offset
by approximately $1.0 million in revenues. Staff costs account for approximately
86% of expenditures. In FY 2011, 56% of revenues were received for services
provided to partner cities. Costs for services are allocated according to each
partner city’s percentage of animals handled and are calculated annually. The
approximate percentage of animals handled in FY 2011 was:
Palo Alto - 54%
Mountain View 30%
Los Alto - 12%
Los Altos Hills 4%.
Other revenue sources in FY 2011 included approximately $213,000 from the low-
cost spay and neuter clinic, $67,000 from the low-cost vaccination clinic, $49,000
in dog license fees, $34,000 is pet supply sales, and $28,000 from citations.
Detailed information about Palo Alto Animal Services expenditures and revenues
are included as attachment 1.
May 10, 2012 Page 4 of 22
(ID # 2839)
Staffing
Palo Alto Animal Services is staffed by 13.14 full-time equivalents, including a full-
time veterinarian, two full-time veterinarian technicians, 4.5 FTE animal control
officers, two animal service specialists, a half-time volunteer coordinator, a
supervisor and a superintendent. There are two additional hourly employees that
assist in the office and the field. Palo Alto animal control officers are available to
handle animal emergencies 24/7 and respond to all stray, sick, injured, dead,
aggressive and dangerous animals. Animals are transported to Palo Alto Animal
Services (PAAS) where they are housed, and if necessary, receive medical
treatment. After hours, Palo Alto has contracts with local veterinarians to care for
veterinary emergencies during times when the City Veterinarian is not available
Basic duties of the staff include:
Animal Control Officers (ACO) (SEIU) – ACOs respond and attempt to
capture stray, injured, sick or aggressive animals. In addition, they
investigate reports of dog bites, dangerous dogs and cases of cruelty,
neglect or abandonment. Finally, the ACOs patrol for loose or stray animals
and enforce local municipal codes. (During the off hours, Palo Alto Police
Department handles these calls.) All animals are transported to Palo Alto
Animal Services (PAAS) shelter where they are housed, and if necessary,
receive medical treatment. ACOs are also responsible for the daily care of
all sheltered animals.
Animal Service Specialists (SEIU) – The Animal Services Specialists handle
customer service for all phone inquiries and walk-ins; lost and found;
general questions; spay and neuter appointments; animal complaints;
animal temperament testing, and assisting the public with animal
behavioral issues. In addition, staff processes all dog licenses (new and
renewals), citations, incoming animals, and strays and surrenders (live and
dead). Specialists also process all paperwork for adoptions, cash
transactions and donations, both monetary and in-kind.
Registered Veterinary Technician (SEIU) – Under the direction of the
veterinarian, the Technicians assist with all surgical procedures; assess all
incoming animals; perform daily treatments/procedures; and answer
May 10, 2012 Page 5 of 22
(ID # 2839)
veterinary inquiries post-surgery. Technicians are also responsible for
medical inventory, ordering and record keeping.
Volunteer Coordinator (SEIU) – This person is charged with the
recruitment, training, supervision, coordination and evaluation of all active
volunteers. This person is responsible for the distribution of information as
it pertains to shelter animals, policies and coordinating the staffing of
public outreach events.
Veterinarian (Management) – Responsible for the development and
supervision of the disease control program in the shelter with regard to
disinfectants and housing policies. Responsible for all veterinary cases and
surgical procedures including record keeping. Responsible for overseeing
of humane euthanasia including the proper use and recording of drugs.
Liaison with local veterinarians and shelters. Evaluation and
recommendation of all cases of potential cruelty or neglect and act as an
expert witness if the case goes to court. (As indicated earlier in this report,
Palo Alto employs a full-time veterinarian who provides medical care. After
hours, Palo Alto has contracts with local veterinarians to care for sheltered
animals during times when the City Veterinarian is not available, although
the City Veterinarian is on call to provide oversight of outside veterinary
work. The current need to use a contracted veterinarian occurs about 50
times per year.
Animal Services Supervisor (Management) – This position is the front line
supervisor for ten (10) line staff, and is responsible for training, evaluation,
and certification. The Supervisor is responsible for record keeping, data
input, collection and reporting as well as for staff scheduling. The
Supervisor is responsible for updating policies and procedures (except for
medical procedures). This position is the liaison with the Office of
Emergency Services for all disaster preparedness and event coordination.
Animal Services Superintendent (Management) – The Superintendent
manages the entire shelter operation and is responsible for the
administrative oversight of the shelter including the supervisor and
veterinarian. The Superintendent is responsible for fiscal management
including budget and fee collection. The Superintendent is the liaison with
May 10, 2012 Page 6 of 22
(ID # 2839)
other city departments, humane agencies, partner cities and oversees the
administration of the regional contracts, as well as manages the City
Veterinarian and the Shelter Supervisor.
A complete listing and associated cost of each staff position is included in the
table below.
PAAS also has a strong volunteer program with approximately fifty volunteers
providing over 3,000 hours a year of service to the shelter. PAAS volunteers serve
as dog walkers/socializers, cat socializers and assist the public at the front desk. It
is generally accepted the time spent with sheltered animal’s aid in the animal's
mental and physical health, resulting in less outbreaks of diseases.
Table 1: PAAS Staff Costs
Job Title
Budgeted
Hourly Rate
Budgeted
FTE
Total
Budgeted
Salary
FY13
Benefit
Rate
Total
FY13 Cost
Administrative Specialist I -
Hourly
$21.72 0.48 $21,720 N/A $21,720
Animal Control Off $26.92 4.50 $251,926 63% $410,639
Animal Services Spec II $29.27 2.00 $121,737 63% $198,431
Management Spec - Hourly
Vet
$37.50 0.10 $7,125 N/A $7,125
Management Spec - Hourly
Vet
$39.50 0.08 $6,320 N/A $6,320
Superintendent Animal
Services
$45.69 1.00 $95,035 63% $154,907
Supervisor Animal Services $38.29 1.00 $79,643 63% $129,818
Veterinarian $54.54 1.00 $113,452 63% $184,927
Veterinarian Tech $27.49 2.00 $114,344 63% $186,381
Volunteer Coordinator $33.16 0.50 $34,491 63% $56,220
Zoological Assistant -
Hourly
$21.73 0.48 $21,730 N/A $21,730
Totals 13.14 $867,524 $1,378,219
Staffing costs are estimated using the overall city-wide benefit rate of 63%, actual rates for each personal area
may vary
May 10, 2012 Page 7 of 22
(ID # 2839)
Animals Handled
In FY 2011, the City handled more than 1,500 domestic animals and nearly 1,800
wildlife animals through shelter operations. Most domestic animals are received
as impounds (stray or confiscated animals) and approximately 20% are owner
surrenders. Palo Alto accounted for 53% of all animals handled in FY 2011,
followed by Mountain View at 30%, Los Altos at 12%, and Los Altos Hills at 4%.
Table 2: PAAS Animals Handled FY 2011
Palo
Alto
Los
Altos
Los Altos
Hills
Mountain
View
Total
Domestic Animals
Impounds 411 99 42 303 855
Surrenders 107 19 5 84 215
Returns 7 0 0 3 10
Total Live 525 118 47 390 1080
Deceased 194 52 12 127 385
Owner
Requested
Euthanasia
38 4 4 15 61
Total
Domestic
757 174 63 532 1526
Wildlife
Deceased 635 167 55 311 1168
Released 341 40 23 137 541
Euthanasia 27 12 5 18 62
Total
Wildlife
1003 219 83 466 1771
All Animals
Number 1760 393 146 998 3297
Percent 53.4% 11.9% 4.4% 30.3% 100%
Calls for Service
In FY 2011, the City responded to approximately 4,200 calls for service. Palo Alto
represented 61% of calls for services, followed by Mountain View at 24%, Los
Altos at 11%, and Los Altos Hills at 5%.
May 10, 2012 Page 8 of 22
(ID # 2839)
Forty Percent (40%), or 1,682, of these calls were for quality of life issues such as
dead animal pickups (1,476 calls) and barking or noisy animals (206 calls).
Twenty-Five Percent (25%), or 1,037, were for emergency situations, such as an
injured or sick animals (789 calls), vicious or aggressive animals (66 calls), animal
neglect and abuse complaints (170 calls), and mountain lion sightings (12 calls).
Twenty-Two Percent (22%), or 934, calls were for stray animals (888) and dogs off
leash (46 calls). The remaining calls were related to administrative investigations
(such as animal bite related), other inspections, lost and found, and other calls for
service. Animal Control Officers responded to 96% of these calls for service.
PAAS Calls for Service: July 1, 2010 – June 2011
May 10, 2012 Page 9 of 22
(ID # 2839)
The City responded to approximately 200 barking dog or noisy animal calls in FY
2011. More than half (57%) of these calls were received between the hours of
6am and 6pm.
Time of Barking Dog Complaints and Responding Units: FY 2011
Delivery of Services
Spay and Neuter Clinic
PAAS performed more than 2,400 spay/neuter surgeries in FY 2011 through the
low-cost spay and neuter clinic. Animals brought in for spay and neuter came
from the following jurisdictions:
May 10, 2012 Page 10 of 22
(ID # 2839)
Palo Alto 14%
Mountain View 6%
Los Altos + Los Altos Hills 4%
Other locations outside of partner cities: 76%
As indicated, 76 percent of spay/neuter surgeries were delivered to pets
belonging individuals living outside of the partner communities including Palo
Alto. Many of these are provided to individuals living on the Peninsula or in the
East Bay, but individuals as far away as Danville and Nevada City, CA came to
PAAS for spay and neuter services.
Location of Recipients of PAAS Spay and Neuter Services
Vaccinations
PAAS administered 5,455 vaccinations in FY 2011 through the clinic. Animals
brought in for vaccinations came from the following jurisdictions:
May 10, 2012 Page 11 of 22
(ID # 2839)
Palo Alto 16%
Mountain View 17%
Los Altos + Los Altos Hills 6%
Other locations outside of partner cities: 61%
Similar to spay and neuter, many of these vaccinations are provided to individuals
living elsewhere on the Peninsula or in the East Bay.
Location of Recipients of PAAS Vaccination Services
The primary operational costs for the Spay and Neuter Clinic include staffing,
medical equipment maintenance, and medical supplies. A cost recovery analysis
on the Spay and Neuter Clinic will be provided prior to the meeting, utilizing
additional information from the fee study which was not available in time to
include in this staff report.
May 10, 2012 Page 12 of 22
(ID # 2839)
Pet Recovery and Adoption - Attempts to reunite lost pets with their owners are a
priority. Stray animals picked up by ACOs are checked for identification and
scanned for a microchip. If an owner can be ascertained, the officer makes every
reasonable attempt to reunite the animal with its owners. In calendar year 2011,
PAAS’ returned 268 dogs or 55% to their owners and returned 49 cats or 12% to
their owners; SVACA’s return-to-owner rates were 42% for dogs and 8% for cats
over the same period. Those animals that are not reunited are evaluated to
determine adoptability. Animals that are approved for adoption are held for an
indeterminate amount of time with the hopes of finding an appropriate home.
Of those dogs and cats that are put up for adoption, 95% are successfully placed
in new homes. In FY 2011, PAAS completed nearly 270 adoptions and successfully
transferred another 610 to rescue groups. PAAS staff members, who are certified
as euthanasia technicians, humanely euthanize animals that are deemed
unadoptable due to their medical condition or behavioral problems.
Animals surrendered by their owners occur for a number of reasons including loss
of housing, loss of income, combining families, etc. Many shelters will not accept
surrendered animals or they may charge a fee, resulting in the owner abandoning
the animal. PAAS is one of only a few shelters in the area that accepts
surrendered animals at no charge to the owner.
May 10, 2012 Page 13 of 22
(ID # 2839)
Fees for Services
PAAS charges a variety of fees for services performed at the shelter. Fees may be
based on the type and size of animal, the type of service provided and incentives
to ensure animals are altered. The primary fees charged by the shelter are
outlined in the table below; most of these fees have been updated in the last
three years.
Table 3: PAAS Fees for Services
Adoption Fees
Dog $100*
Cat $100*
Rabbit $40*
Hamster $5
Mice $5
Bird $5-$25
Licensing
Dog Altered (1 Year) $15
Altered (2 Year) $25
Altered (3 Year) $35
Unaltered (1 year) $30
Cats Altered (5 Year) $5
Unaltered (5 year) $10
Late Penalty $20 ($30 if unaltered)
Vaccinations
Rabies $10
Cat Vaccination - FVRCP $15
Dog Vaccination - DA2PP $15
FIV/Feline Leukemia Test $30
Microchip $35
Spay/Neuter
Cat $55 (Neuter) $80 (Spay)
Dog $85-$195 (Neuter) $100-$215 (Spay)
* Includes spay/neuter, vaccinations, and microchip
Options for Future Service Delivery
May 10, 2012 Page 14 of 22
(ID # 2839)
The departure of Mountain View from the shared services agreement in FY 2012
represents a significant fiscal challenge for the FY 2013 budget and future
budgets. In light of these challenges, the Budget division of Administrative
Services recommended the consideration of fully contracting out Animal Services
beginning in FY 2013 with an estimated annual cost to the City of approximately
$500,000, based on a quote obtained from SVACA. This recommendation was
discussed at a Council retreat in March. At this meeting, staff was directed to
bring back additional information to the Policy & Services Committee for further
discussion.
Table 4: Outsource Animal Control and Care Services
Description Cost
Expenditure Changes
Eliminate 13.14 FTE Animal Services
Staff
Based on FY2013 budget estimate ($1,610,000)
Eliminate all non-personnel costs
associated with Animal Services
Based on FY2013 budget estimate ($273,639)
Contract for Animal Services (annual
cost)
Based on preliminary quote $500,000
Expenditure Subtotal ($1,383,639)
Revenue Impacts
Loss of all revenue generated from
Animal Services
Based on FY2013 budget estimate, assuming
$470k revenue loss from Mountain View
($764,534)
Revenue Subtotal ($764,534)
Net Savings to the City $619,105
Outsourcing Animal Services to Another Agency – Staff have identified several
potential animal service providers based on the feasibility of maintaining most
existing services, and the ability and desire of the potential alternate service
providers to fully serve Palo Alto, including:
• Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority (SVACA) - Located in Santa Clara,
SVACA is a Joint Powers Authority between the cities of Santa Clara,
Campbell and Monte Sereno (Mountain View will join SVACA in November
2012). SVACA is located 10 miles from PAAS.
May 10, 2012 Page 15 of 22
(ID # 2839)
• City of San Jose - The City of San Jose provides animal services to its city,
Cupertino, Los Gatos, Milpitas and Saratoga. Their facility is located near
the Santa Clara County Fairgrounds. The City of San Jose facility is located
17.4 miles from PAAS
• Humane Society of Silicon Valley (HSSV) - HSSV is located in Milpitas and
only provides sheltering services. HSSV is located 14.4 miles from PAAS.
• Peninsula Humane Society (PHS) – PHS is located in San Mateo and
provides animal services to San Mateo County. PHS is located 16.4 miles
from PAAS.
SVACA, PHS, and the City of San Jose operate the most complete animal service
and control operations of the three providers. HSSV would not prov ide animal
control field services, which would require animal control resources to be
retained by the City. Service levels would vary by provider and would have to be
thoroughly evaluated through the RFP process.
While SVACA and San Jose provide many of the same services as the City of Palo
Alto, there are several important service level differences between SVACA and
the City of Palo Alto which should be considered. For instance, SVACA provides
follow-up on barking dog complaints but the responsibility to respond to the call
would fall on the City’s police officers. Jurisdictions may also handle barking dog
complaints differently. For example, in San Jose, residents may file a complaint
with Animal Services, generating a warning to the pet owner. Complainants may
then maintain a Nuisance Petition and Log form which could result in an
administrative citation for the pet owner if remedial action is not taken. Palo Alto
could adopt a similar approach or consider absorbing these complaints into
existing code enforcement responsibilities.
Another difference is in the approach accepting surrendered animals as noted
below:
The City of San Jose does not accept owner surrenders. Residents of San
Jose and its member agencies are directed to the HSSV for pet surrender
services.
May 10, 2012 Page 16 of 22
(ID # 2839)
SVACA, HSSV and PHS advertise acceptance of owner surrenders. However,
SVACA charges a surrender fee of $150, HSSV charges a fee of $160, and
PHS charges a fee of $20.
As indicated earlier, PAAS does not charge any fees for surrenders at the shelter.
A detailed description of services provided by the City of Palo Alto, along with
mandated services, is included as attachment 2.
Expenditure reduction options – Should the Council not wish to fully outsource
the function, staff has identified other cost-saving options for consideration that
seek to close the gap between revenues and expenditures in animal services.
These expenditure reduction options, along with associated service level impacts,
are outlined in the table below:
Animal Control Officer field coverage would go from 2 officers to one officer 85%
of the time. Because Palo Alto is contractually obligated to provide animal control
services seven days per week, from 8:00am to 5:00pm, to its partner cities, ACOs
would have to work a 4/10 schedule to cover the hours in the contract. Under this
Option1: Reduce Management Oversight and Level of Field Services
Description Cost
Expenditure Changes
Eliminate 1.0 FTE Animal Services
Supervisor
Annual salary of $79,643 + 63%
benefit rate
($129,818)
Eliminate 1.0 FTE Animal Control Officer Annual salary of $55,984 + 63%
benefit rate
($91,254)
Eliminate 0.5 FTE Volunteer Coordinator Annual salary of $34,491 + 63%
benefit rate
($56,220)
Expenditure Subtotal ($277,292)
Revenue Impacts*
Store sales revenue reduction Estimated 16% sales revenue loss
from reduced shelter hours
($6,467)
Revenue Subtotal ($6,467)
Net Savings to the City $270,826
* There is no anticipated revenue loss to impound fees, administrative citation revenue, or other
revenue generated by the ACO. Field service will be prioritized, primarily effecting responses that
are not revenue generating. Staffing costs are estimated using the overall city-wide benefit rate of
63%, actual rates for each personal area may vary.
May 10, 2012 Page 17 of 22
(ID # 2839)
scenario, there would be no back up officer in cases of simultaneous calls for
service, calls for service with multiple animals, nor field coverage in times of
illness, vacation or family leave. With only one field officer on duty, field safety
would require back-up response from other public safety officers. Emergency field
services must be performed 365 days/year, 24 hours/day; with a smaller staff
pool to share the burden, the propensity of staff burnout and risk of injury would
increase. In FY 2011, on call ACOs responded to approximately 300 calls for
service. It is reasonable to assume that the animal control officer will work a ten
hour day, go on-call and receive one to three calls for service between the hours
of 5 pm and 7 am. That same officer is expected to be on-duty the following day
for another ten hour shift with limited or interrupted rest.
Under this option, services such as shelter tours and talks may be reduced due to
staffing shortages. In addition, when staffing is reduced, longer-term planning
such as disaster preparedness, training, participation in numerous countywide
programs, and mutual aid would be prioritized against other responsibilities. Due
to the increased workload, the shelter may need to close an additional day to the
public to provide staff an opportunity to work on these planning issues and other
administrative responsibilities.
Option 2: Reduce Management Oversight and Level of Field Services; hybrid staffing
Description Cost
Expenditure Changes
Eliminate 1.0 FTE Animal Services
Supervisor
Annual salary of $79,643 + 63%
benefit rate
($129,818)
Eliminate 2.0 FTE Animal Control Officer Annual salary of $55,984 + 63%
benefit rate
($182,508)
Eliminate 0.5 FTE Volunteer Coordinator Annual salary of $34,491 + 63%
benefit rate
($56,220)
Eliminate 1.0 Animal Services Specialist Annual salary of $60,869 + 63%
benefit rate
($99,216)
Add 1.0 Animal Control Specialist Estimated annual salary of $58,425
+ 63% benefit rate
$95,233
Expenditure Subtotal ($372,530)
Revenue Impacts*
Store sales revenue reduction Estimated 16% sales revenue loss
from reduced shelter hours
($6,467)
Revenue Subtotal ($6,467)
Net Savings to the City $366,063
May 10, 2012 Page 18 of 22
(ID # 2839)
* There is no anticipated revenue loss to impound fees, administrative citation revenue, or other
revenue generated by the ACO. Field service will be prioritized, primarily effecting responses that
are not revenue generating. Staffing costs are estimated using the overall city-wide benefit rate of
63%, actual rates for each personal area may vary.
This option is the same as #1, with the addition of a new employee classification
that combines the duties of an ACO with office staff to better meet changing
seasonal needs and to be available as back-up for critical situations in the field.
Option 3: Service Reduction to Mandated and Essential Levels
Description Cost
Expenditure Changes
Eliminate 1.0 FTE Animal Services
Supervisor
Annual salary of $79,643 + 63%
benefit rate
($129,818)
Eliminate 1.0 FTE Veterinarian Annual salary of $113,452 + 63%
benefit rate
($184,927)
Eliminate 1.0 FTE Veterinary Technician Annual salary of $57,172 + 63%
benefit rate
($93,190)
Eliminate 0.5 FTE Animal Control Officer Annual salary of $27,992 + 63%
benefit rate
($45,627)
Eliminate 0.5 FTE Volunteer Coordinator Annual salary of $34,491 + 63%
benefit rate
($56,220)
Eliminate supplies and general expense costs associated with spay/neuter clinic,
volunteer program, and store
($99,638)
Add Contract Veterinarian $500 per day rate, 80 days per
year
$40,000
Increase in emergency veterinarian care Approx. $250 per animal for 180
animals per year
$45,000
Expenditure Subtotal ($524,421)
Revenue Impacts
Loss of all spay/neuter fee revenue Three year annual average
revenue ($233,000)
Loss of all euthanasia fee revenue Fees collected from euthanasia
performed at owner request ($3,950)
Loss of all store sales Three year annual average
revenue ($40,417)
Loss of vaccination fee revenue Estimated 75% loss ($49,946)
Kennel boarding fees Estimated 50% loss ($3,074)
Revenue Subtotal ($330,387)
Net Savings to the City $194,034
May 10, 2012 Page 19 of 22
(ID # 2839)
Staffing costs are estimated using the overall city-wide benefit rate of 63%, actual rates for each
personal area may vary.
In this scenario the mandated and essential services are kept intact. Response
times will remain at an acceptable level and the field services, license services,
rabies quarantines, lost and found, adoption and emergency care will be
maintained. This option would include the elimination of the following positions:
Animal Services Supervisor - 1 FTE
Registered Veterinary Technician - 1 FTE
City Veterinarian - 1 FTE
Volunteer Coordinator - .5 FTE
Animal Control Officer - .5 FTE
A part-time or contract veterinarian would perform spay and neuter surgeries on
animals going up for adoption. Dependent on the veterinarians schedule, public
spay and neuter surgeries may be performed on a very limited basis, perhaps one
or two days per week. The remaining technician would assist in surgery and
provide follow-up care under the doctor’s direction. The ability of shelter staff to
devote considerable resources to public education and volunteer programs would
be diminished and prioritized against other responsibilities.
The office staff will be able to continue to evaluate animals coming up for
adoption, assist the public in the areas of lost and found, disposal of dead
animals, animals being surrendered by their owners, questions regarding animal
behavior and process adoptions. The front office will also continue to take phone
calls and direct them to the proper resources.
May 10, 2012 Page 20 of 22
(ID # 2839)
Option 4: Eliminate Spay/Neuter Clinic, Keep Vaccination Program
Description Cost
Expenditure Changes
Eliminate 1.0 FTE Veterinarian Annual salary of $113,452 + 63%
benefit rate
($184,927)
Eliminate 1.0 FTE Veterinary Technician Annual salary of $57,172 + 63%
benefit rate
($93,190)
Eliminate associated supplies and general
expense costs
($43,750)
Add Contract Veterinarian $500 per day rate, 55 days per
year
$27,500
Increase in emergency veterinarian care Approx. $250 per animal for 300
animals per year
$75,000
Expenditure Subtotal ($219,367)
Revenue Impacts
Loss of all spay/neuter fee revenue Three year annual average
revenue
($233,000)
Loss of all euthanasia and disposal fee
revenue
Fees collected from euthanasia
performed at owner request
($3,950)
Revenue Subtotal ($236,950)
Net Cost to the City $17,583
Staffing costs are estimated using the overall city-wide benefit rate of 63%, actual rates for each
personal area may vary.
Under this option all veterinary care would be provided by a contract veterinarian
and the City would eliminate the public spay and neuter clinic and associated
revenues of $233,000 per year. Emergency veterinary care would be outsourced
to various local veterinary hospitals for services. The City would save
approximately $278,000 in staff costs and $43,000 in veterinary supplies and
general expense costs. PAAS would contract with a veterinarian for one day per
week spay and neuter surgeries for shelter animals going up for adoption
(approximately 250/year) and to continue with the weekly vaccination clinic at a
cost of $400-$500/day. The remaining veterinary technician will assist the
veterinarian with surgeries and assess all incoming animals. Treatments and
May 10, 2012 Page 21 of 22
(ID # 2839)
follow-up from outside veterinarians will be done by the technician M -F and by
the kennel staff Saturday and Sunday.
Under this option PAAS could no longer offer to waive impound fees in lieu of
having the animal spayed and neutered and would no longer offer euthanasia for
owned animals, a loss of nearly $3,950 in revenue.
In addition, all animal medical issues would be handled by contract veterinarians.
Currently, the City Veterinarian handles medical issues that are not chronic in
nature and with a positive outcome could make an animal adoptable. Some
examples of these life-saving procedures are: amputation, eye enucleation,
splinting, hernia repair, crytorchid surgeries and cherry eye. Treatments such as
those listed are done in the regular course of work by the veterinary staff and
adoption or rescue is the likely outcome. If these procedures were to be
contracted out to regular veterinary practices the costs associated with these
services may make them unobtainable and the animal would be euthanized.
The euthanasia of animals with treatable medical issues has been eliminated by
the six Santa Clara County shelters. PAAS could no longer ensure residents or
grantors that this would take place.
Expand partnerships and existing services – The City could also make an effort to
take on additional partners when existing contractual relationships terminate.
Staff has identified several potential new partners beginning in FY 2015, but the
exact amount of revenue that could be anticipated from new partners is unknown
at this time. There are also hybrid approaches available where some functions
could be outsourced while some staff is retained to perform additional duties not
available through a contracted provider. For example, an Animal Control Officer
could be retained at an annual cost of $90,000 to provide some of the services
that may be unavailable if animal services were performed by a contractor.
However, this does not ensure that residents would not experience changes in
service levels.
In addition, the City may be able to partner with local non-profits to deliver
services. Additional revenue generating services and programs could also be
considered, such as providing boarding services to the public, dog training, low
cost veterinary services (in addition to spay/neuter and vaccinations), and
May 10, 2012 Page 22 of 22
(ID # 2839)
expanding the shelter’s retail operation. Most of these options would require
capital outlays to accommodate space needs.
Attachments:
Attachment 1-Animal Services Financial Data (PDF)
Attachment 2 -Animal Services Mandates (PDF)
Prepared By: Dennis Burns, Police Chief
Department Head: Dennis Burns, Police Chief
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
Palo Alto Animal Services Revenue
Revenue Type Description Rates FY2009
Actuals
FY2010
Actuals
FY2011 Actuals
FY2012
Projected
FY2012
Adopted Budget
FY2013
Budget
Partner City
Agreements
Contract with Mountain
View, Los Altos and Los
Altos Hills
Shared cost model based on
proportion of animals served
annually from the jurisdiction
$573,538 $951,384 $611,394 $668,795 $675,000 $386,250
Spay/Neuter Clinic
Fees
Spay or neuter of dogs,
cats, rabbits, rats and
guinea pigs
$15 to $195 depending on gender
and weight of animal
$230,601 $254,820 $213,328 $214,745 $288,500 $297,155
Vaccination Fees Vaccination and microchip
fees
$6 to $15 per vaccination type;
$75 for puppy/kitten package
$63,327 $69,365 $67,095 $68,350 $70,000 $72,100
Impound Fees State and City
Impoundment Fees
$20 to $175 depending on animal
type and number of previous
offenses
$7,228 $9,666 $7,714 $7,599 $14,650 $17,690
Dog License Fees All dogs are required to be
licensed
$15 to $70, depending on length
of license
$45,192 $48,645 $48,598 $57,507 $51,800 $56,959
Store Sales Sales of food, medicine,
and toys available for sale
Various, prices set by Animal
Services Superintendent
$47,974 $39,750 $33,526 $28,390 $55,000 $5,500
Administrative
Citations
Citations for violations of
all animal related municipal
codes
$25 to $500 depending on type
and number of previous offenses
$10,545 $21,175 $28,095 $20,300 $20,000 $20,600
Euthanasia and
Disposal Fees
Euthanasia services and
proper disposal of animal
remains
$8 to $200, depending on weight
of animal and desired services
$12,178 $12,590 $13,841 $10,632 $13,000 $13,390
Kennel Boarding
Fees
Boarding of animals during
surgeries, quarantine, or
owner requested
$3 to $15 per day, depending on
animal
$5,758 $10,175 $2,508 $3,825 $7,000 $9,210
Special Service
Fees
Reports, home quarantines,
and special pick up
Various $3,970 $3,960 $4,150 $3,960 $3,500 $3,605
Trap and
Equipment Rentals
Feral animal traps $5 per day $1,645 $1,075 $1,295 $1,416 $1,000 $1,030
All other revenue Other pet licenses, state grants and miscellaneous revenue
$675 $1,275 $10,920 $3,450 $1,500 $1,545
TOTAL REVENUE $1,002,631 $1,423,881 $1,042,463 $1,088,999 $1,204,450 $885,034
FY2013 Budget figures include a $300k pro-rated Mountain View revenue loss, and a 3% increase from the FY2012 Adopted Budget in all other revenue from the planned Muni Fee Increase
Attachment 1 – Animal Services Financial Detail
Palo Alto Animal Services Expenses
Expense Type Description FY2009
Actuals
FY2010
Actuals
FY2011 Actuals FY2012
Projected
FY2012
Adopted Budget
FY2013
Budget
Regular Salaries Salaries for 12.20 FTE regular employees $855,835 $824,871 $835,742 $811,295 $842,459 $849,256
Overtime and Night Shift Pay Differential pay for overtime and night shift
hours in accordance with memorandums of
agreement
$86,980 $80,247 $80,812 $63,092 $34,255 $34,255
Temporary Salaries Salaries for 1.22 FTE temporary employees $25,632 $52,561 $22,925 $40,928 $64,326 $64,326
Benefits Disability, worker’s comp, health benefits,
retiree medical, Medicare, and others.
$491,327 $466,372 $536,233 $471,786 $563,079 $662,163
Contract Services Clinic equipment maintenance, lab analysis,
advertising, animal disposal/cremation, alarm
maintenance
$33,664 $32,936 $33,108 $29,501 $41,690 $41,690
Facilities & Equipment Animal control equipment
$469 $480 $505 $495 $500 $500
General Expense Bank card processing charges, volunteer
program materials and annual veterinary
licenses
$8,909 $7,314 $7,329 $7,534 $8,050 $8,050
Supplies and Materials Office supplies, food and animal care supplies,
medical supplies and drugs
$104,077 $107,293 $102,622 $98,033 $120,710 $120,710
Allocated Charges Utilities, vehicle maintenance and replacement,
and administrative charges
$103,636 $101,527 $93,285 $94,764 $94,764 $102,689
TOTAL EXPENSES $1,710,529 $1,673,600 $1,712,562 $1,617,428 $1,769,832 $1,883,639
Animal Services Comparison
FIELD SERVICES PAAS MAND SERV
Pick up confined stray domestic animals including livestock x x
Rescue of animals in distress x x
Pick up sick or injured domestic animals x x
Pick up injured or sick wildlife, transfer to wildlife care center x
Pick up dead animals x x
Respond to complaints of animals at large x
Police assists x x
Public Safety Complaints - Venomous snakes, Coyotes, birds of prey x x
Process Permits for livestock, bees, grooming and boarding x
Pick up owner surrendered animals x
Assess Bee swarms, work with Bee Keepers x
Assess complaints of municipal ordinance infractions;animal defecation, excessive #x
Perform park and school patrols for stray or off-leash animals x
Investigate complaints of animal cruelty,neglect,abuse, unsanitary conditions and fighting x x
Investigate complaints of nuisance animals, excluding noise x
Respond to barking dog complaints x
Investigate reports of animal bites and quarantine when necessary x x
Respond immediately to reports of aggressive/dangerous/vicious animals x x
Investigate complaints of excessive animals x
Issue Criminal Citations x x
Issue Administrative citations x x
Administrative hearings for dangerous/vicious dogs; reports, witness at hearing x x
Administrative hearings for Municipal Code violations x
Comprehensive community outreach/humane education programs x
Animal safety training for service workers x x
ANIMAL CARE AND SHELTERING
Shelter abandoned, impounded, stray and surrendered animals x x
Quarantine biting animals x x
Rabies testing of suspected animals x x
After-hours drop facilities x
Veterinary care and treatment at shelter x x
Save all healthy and treatable animals: return to owner/rescue/foster/adoption x
Owner requested euthanasia x
Euthanisia of unadoptable, untreatable animals x x
Disaster supplies on site - water tanks, stationary and mobile trailer, etc.x
Maintain isolation area to limit exposure to zoonotic and contagious diseases x
VETERINARY SERVICES
City Veterinarian and technicians on site for diagnosis, care and treatment x
Emergency after hours veterinary care at outside vet hospitals x x
Weekly public vaccination clinics; including microchips x
Annual At-cost rabies vaccination clinic at shelter x x
Public low-cost spay and neuter clinic (M-F)x
City Veterinarian performs necropsies on suspected cruelty cases x
City Veterinarian provides expert testimony in criminal cases x
City Veterinarian on-call 24/7 for advice and collaboration x
City Veterinarian provides protocols for cleaning, feeding and specialty care x
ADOPTION/ LOST & FOUND/ LICENSING/CUSTOMER SERVICE
Four outside telephone lines answered by live person x
Adoption program; interview, introduction, follow-up x x
Process over the counter strays, surrenders, dead x x
Dog licensing program; new, renewals, expired x x
Enforcement for no dog license, no rabies vaccination x x
Counseling for public on topics of; adoption, euthanasia, behavior issues x
Grief counseling for pet owners x
Issue Assistance Animal identification tags to qualified residents x x
Provide humane traps to the public x
Acceptance of surrendered personally owned animals x
Volunteer opportunities; socialization, foster care, grooming, S/N appts, events x
Pet supplies for sale x
Animal behavior counseling x
Placement partnerships developed and maintained with rescue groups x
Onsite dog training for volunteers, Canine Good Citizen Certification x
Disaster Preparedness Training and Services to residents NIMS, SIMS, CERTS, CPR x x
Responsible for written information for public; Citi-B, pamphletts, disaster prep x
Maintenance of microchip and tag database x x
Process dead owned animals awaiting private cremation x
Process donations received in-kind and monetary x
Provide lost and found services for owners looking for pets x x
5/4/2012
Attachment 2
POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
MINUTES
Page 1 of 23
Special Meeting
May 10, 2012
ROLL CALL
Chairperson Holman called the meeting to order at 6:09 p.m. in the Council
Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Holman (Chair), Espinosa, Klein, Schmid
Absent:
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Consideration and Discussion of the Palo Alto Animal
Services Outsourcing and Other Cost Reduction Options.
Pamela Antil, Assistant City Manager reported the presentation would give
an overview of the Palo Alto Animal Services (PAAS) function within the City
as well as answer a number of questions from the Policy and Services
Committee (Committee) members and the public. The shelter was located
on the East Bayshore property at the Municipal Services Center (MSC).
David Ramberg, Assistant Director of Administrative Services provided a
financial context for the proposal to outsource PAAS. The City was forced
into serious consideration of outsourcing when Mountain View withdrew from
the multi-city agreement for PAAS. That negatively affected General Fund
revenue by $470,000. Outsourcing PAAS was one of a number of proposals
for budget reductions to close a $5.8 million gap in the General Fund for
Fiscal Year (FY) 2013. The Long Range Financial Forecast projected a $3.7
million deficit in FY 2014, and a cumulative deficit of $83.4 million for FY
2015-2022. The need to review PAAS from a cost perspective was critical.
The Proposed Budget included a complete outsourcing of PAAS. Additional
issues were major facility upgrades and expansions that would increase
costs further without new opportunities for revenue from other partners.
Additional expansion would need additional partnership on the revenue side.
MINUTES
Page 2 of 23
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 05/10/2012
Ms. Antil reported the City had a significant Budget shortfall that need ed to
be covered. Additional challenges that did not have concrete price tags were
proximity to the shelter for the public and emotional attachment to the
current facility. The shelter received approximately 65 visitors per day
including people visiting the animals. PAAS was a part of the cultural fabric
of the community. It was one of the first shelters that provided this type of
service in the United States. PAAS provided a high-level, high-touch service
that would be hard to emulate through outsourcing. Staff and volunteers
were dedicated to PAAS. PAAS was one of the few public shelters in the
area that would take animals from outside the partner cities. Staff tried to
balance animal care with fiscal constraints. This particular Item was
forwarded to Committee as part of a larger discussion the Council had
regarding Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) recommendations.
PAAS's budget under Public Safety was on the Agenda for the following
Tuesday at the Finance Committee. Staff hoped the Committee would hear
input from the public, learn more about the services PAAS provided, and
recommend long-term actions from a policy perspective. The financial
portion of PAAS would be discussed in detail with the Finance Committee the
following week. Staff provided some basic financial information to answer
questions from the Committee and other members of the City Council. The
Finance Committee would have its meeting the following Tuesday, and
hoped to finalize budget sessions on May 29, 2012, with B udget adoption
scheduled for June 18, 2012. There would not be a final decision from P&SC
Committee.
Amber Cameron, Senior Management Analyst presented a broad overview of
the financial information of PAAS. In FY 2011, total expenditures for PAAS
were $1.71 million, and total revenues were $1.04 million. A good portion
of that was revenue from member cities, including Mountain View, Los Altos,
and Los Altos Hills. The spay and neuter clinic, vaccinations , and dog
licenses comprised a majority of the remaining revenue. The net cost to the
City for FY 2011 was $670,000. The total number of domestic animals
served annually was 9,300; 1,500 animal intakes (100 percent from Palo
Alto and member cities), 2,400 animals at the spay and neuter clinic (24
percent from Palo Alto and member cities), and 5,400 animals at the
vaccination clinic (39 percent from Palo Alto and member cities). Overall, 55
percent of animals served were from outside the member cities. The
primary impetus for reviewing the PAAS budget was the loss of revenue
from Mountain View. Mountain View provided the required one-year notice
to terminate service in November 2011. The contract with Mountain View
would end October 31, 2012. From July 1, 2012 through October 31, 2012,
the City would receive $170,000 from Mountain View. The gap from
November 2012 through June 2013 would be $300,000. The cost to the City
MINUTES
Page 3 of 23
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 05/10/2012
was $670,000 with the annualized Mountain View revenue loss of $470,000.
The net cost to the City would be $1.14 million. Outso urcing, as a service
delivery alternative, would include closing the City's current operations for
PAAS and paying another agency to provide the services for residents. The
estimated cost for the contract was $500,000 annually, which would provide
the greatest savings to the City. Another option was to reduce management
and field services. This option would eliminate 2.5 Full-Time Equivalents
(FTE) and reduce costs by $271,000. A second option was an expansion of
the first option, with the creation of a hybrid employee classification that
would perform both office support and animal control duties. Option 2 would
result in a cost reduction of $366,000. Option 3 would provide only
mandated and essential services, which would eliminate 4 FTEs and reduce
costs by $194,000. Staff prepared a cost reduction analysis of eliminating
only the spay and neuter, but did not recommend this option because it
would cost the City an additional $18,000.
Ian Hagerman, Senior Financial Analyst noted Some service-level impacts of
outsourcing would be an increased travel distance to the facility for Palo Alto
residents, increased response times for non-emergency calls, and a reduced
level of proactive enforcement in field services. Staff proposed several
expenditure reduction plans in the option to retain PAAS within the City. The
first option reduced management and field services, which would leave the
division without backup in times of vacation and leave. Calls for service that
could not be handled by an animal control officer would fall on the Police
Department Patrol Division, and those would be prioritized against Patrol's
calls for service, resulting in increased response times. With any option to
reduce management staffing, there would be a reduction in long-term
planning items such as disaster preparedness and Staff training. Option 2
was quite similar to Option 1 with the addition of hybrid staffing, and the
impacts were similar. This option would allow some flexibility in scheduling
field services employees during times of higher calls for service, particularly
in the summer. Option 3 proposed mandated and essential services only.
This option would focus solely on animal control and adoption services. The
public spay and neuter clinic, the vaccination clinic, the pet store, and most
other animal care services would be eliminated. This would preserve most
of the current field service options, but would decrease the options available
to the public. The last scenario was eliminating the spay and neuter clin ic,
which would have a net cost to the City. Staff did not recommend that
option. Staff had been asked to provide some revenue enhancement
scenarios. No scenario provided a full cost recovery for PAAS. Staff had not
identified any municipality-operated shelter or private shelter that was not
heavily subsidized by the government or donations. It was difficult to pass
those costs to consumers. Some options would be increasing vaccination
fees, spay and neuter fees, licensing compliance, and barking dog citation
MINUTES
Page 4 of 23
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 05/10/2012
fees. Licensing compliance would require Palo Alto to either mandate or
work with local vets to obtain information on dog owners. Legal issues of
charging non-residents higher fees than residents would need to be studied
further.
Council Member Klein asked whether Los Altos and Los Altos Hills were
willing to share more of the burden of this facility.
James Keene, City Manager reported he discussed the issue with the
managers of Los Altos and Los Altos Hills, and their capacity to share the
burden had limitations based on the amount they were currently paying and
the service they received. They had expressed an interest in working with
Palo Alto.
Bob Beacom, Assistant Police Chief reported Los Altos and Los Altos Hills
were not in a position to assume a bigger role. If the City ceased operating
PAAS, they could join Palo Alto in moving to another facility or make other
arrangements. Los Altos' and Los Altos Hills' assumption of the extra burden
left by Mountain View was cost prohibitive.
Council Member Klein stated no one was suggesting they assume the entire
gap left by Mountain View. He felt Los Altos and Los Altos Hills residents
would rather travel to Palo Alto than Santa Clara. He asked what the legal
problems were with charging non-residents higher fees, and how that was
different from other areas where non-residents were charged higher fees.
Mr. Keene indicated the City Attorney had not completed her research and
could not definitively state there were no problems. Propositions 218 and 26
and other issues were forcing fee charges to be aligned with the cost of the
service. The City would have to develop the rationale for different fees in
this new environment.
Council Member Klein noted an earlier presentation indicated higher fe es for
non-residents were prohibited, and now Staff was indicating higher fees
could be charged.
Mr. Keene repeated Staff could not definitively state whether or not the City
would have the flexibility legally to create surcharges on out-of-the-area
users. The City was providing many services to people outside the service
area.
Council Member Klein asked if the City Attorney had indicated when she
would have a response.
MINUTES
Page 5 of 23
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 05/10/2012
Mr. Keene answered no. He assumed it would be relatively soon.
Council Member Klein suggested non-residents should pay the right amount
and not be subsidized by the taxpayers of Palo Alto.
Mr. Keene stated the question would be could the City charge non -residents
more than recovery in order to subsidize Palo Alto residents. The Coun cil
may need to work through the rationale.
Molly Stump, City Attorney reported Staff was reviewing the fee issues. The
structure of fees and the ability to change the structure of fees and add
different fees raised a number of issues. Staff wanted to review all of them
to ensure any fee structure adopted by the Council was defensible and
appropriate. Staff could provide that information in the next week or so.
Council Member Klein asked for more details concerning difficulties in
increasing license fees for animals.
Mr. Hagerman suggested licensing fees would not necessarily be a problem.
There were some fees that were difficult to increase, such as impound fees
or adoption fees. Raising those fees could result in owners not claiming their
animals and animals not being adopted. There was some difficulty in
increasing those fees beyond what the market could bear.
Council Member Klein indicated he was referring to the annual license fees.
Mr. Hagerman stated the City had some flexibility to increa se those fees, but
they would not bring in a substantial amount of revenue.
Council Member Klein asked Staff to provide details regarding using
veterinarians as a way of enforcing licensing.
Sandra Stadler, Superintendent of Animal Services reported surr ounding
municipalities had ordinances requesting and requiring clinics to provide
license authorities with rabies vaccination information in order for authorities
to follow up with dog licenses. PAAS did not have that enforcement ability in
Palo Alto, but did in Los Altos. Staff hoped this would increase license
compliance and, therefore, increase revenue and also allow Staff to return
stray animals to their homes.
Council Member Klein inquired if Staff knew how much this proposal could
increase revenue.
MINUTES
Page 6 of 23
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 05/10/2012
Ms. Stadler indicated Staff's recommendation was to increase license fees so
that Palo Alto was comparable to surrounding agencies. The compliance rate
in Palo Alto was currently 18 percent. Staff was considering programs to
increase compliance, which should double the current revenue. Revenue
should continue to increase over time.
Council Member Klein asked for the compliance rate in Los Altos.
Ms. Stadler reported Los Altos' compliance rate was lower. Staff had the
ability to write citations and follow-up with obtaining and renewing licenses
in Palo Alto. Staff had just taken on that duty for Los Altos and Los Altos
Hills, and expected compliance to increase.
Council Member Klein inquired if Staff had figures from other communities
where this program had been in effect.
Ms. Stadler stated the City of San Jose increased revenue by $300,000 in
one year by implementing a municipal ordinance.
Ms. Antil stated the City received approximately $49,000 from animal
licenses. If the license fee remained the same, 36 percent compliance would
generate approximately $100,000.
Council Member Klein was attempting to determine small amounts of
revenue increases to possibly cover the deficit.
Ms. Antil reported Staff performed some estimates of increasing fees, and
determined the increase in funds would be about $100,000. Staff did not
find any scenario without cuts in PAAS that could close the $600,000 gap.
Council Member Klein asked Staff to comment on the Humane Society
proposal.
Ms. Stadler reported the ability to enhance the spay and neuter clinic was
something Staff wanted to consider. Staff had every desire to increase
efficiencies, but doubling the spay and neuter clinic numbers would be
extremely difficult. Staff was following industry and humane standards. In
the past, the spay and neuter veterinarians and technicians did nothing but
spay and neuter, but now they were working in the vaccination clinic and
caring for the animals in the shelter. With the current staffing, Staff could
not double the number, but could increase the number.
Mr. Keene indicated the Humane Society proposal was more detailed than
proposals the City normally received. If the Council wanted to consider a
MINUTES
Page 7 of 23
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 05/10/2012
different alternative, then Staff would need to perform further due d iligence.
The motivation for the Budget was to make ongoing structural adjustments
where possible to save money for the long term. Over the next ten years, a
$300,000 savings would be $3 million. Those savings mattered for other
services provided by the City. When the Council made a decision about how
it wanted to proceed, it needed to ensure the numbers were consistent over
several years.
Council Member Schmid inquired whether Staff had received any feedback
from other communities such as Menlo Park and East Palo Alto concerning
possible partnerships.
Ms. Antil reported Staff had interacted with those communities. They were
in a County contract in San Mateo that expired in 2015. Those communities
were unsure of the future of that agreement, but they were not eligible to
partner with PAAS at the current time. Depending on the direction the
Council took, in the short term the shelter was fine. To attract new entities
to the shelter and to accommodate more animals, PAAS would need to make
some upgrades to the shelter or consider a warehouse model similar to the
one Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority (SVACA) used.
Council Member Schmid understood Palo Alto had achieved a certain level of
service that offered a number of things that SVACA did not. He asked Staff
to articulate possible differences in services.
Ms. Antil indicated one major difference, from a resident's point of view, was
a proactive park patrol by animal control officers. Animal control officers
were very responsive to barking dog complaints, neighbor disputes, and
dogs on other property; and accommodated field trips and school
engagements. Community members knew the animal control officers.
These were the types of services that would be reduced, because there
would not be the same number of animal control officers in a smaller
geographic region. Some communities responded to barking dog complaints
through code enforcement, sent letters and after so many letters, the
owners were charged an administrative fee. The City could re spond to those
types of complaints using other Staff or cross-staffing, but it would not be
the same level of service. Many times, animal control officers knew the pets
in the community and could return lost pets to their owners. In time, animal
control officers from another entity could learn the community, but it would
not be the same.
Mr. Hagerman indicated a change would occur in calls for service. PAAS
responded to almost 1,800 dead animal calls last year across all partner
cities, with 700 of those being in Palo Alto. The response time for those calls
MINUTES
Page 8 of 23
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 05/10/2012
was generally within 30 to 60 minutes. SVACA had a response time of
approximately 10 hours on a similar level of calls for service. San Jose,
another potential partner agency, had difficulty responding to their highest
priority calls in a day. Either residents or police officers would have to pick
up dead animals. Calls concerning stray animals also had a response time of
10 hours from SVACA. PAAS generally responded within 30 minutes. There
would be a sharp increase in response times for those types of calls.
Aggressive animals were high priority for SVACA, and their response times
were not drastically different than PAAS. Some quality of life issues would
be impacted.
Council Member Schmid noted some activities currently being performed by
animal control officers would be shifted to the Public Safety call centers in
Palo Alto. Budget discussions included a reduction in the number of Public
Safety officers; therefore, there was a potential community conflict.
Ms. Antil stated Staff would not recommend shifting those calls to the Police
Officers; although, Police Officers did respond to those calls after PAAS
business hours. One code enforcement officer in the Police Department and
one code compliance officer in the Planning & Community Environment
Department handled a variety of matters. Staff had discussed whether or
not some complaints could be handled by them. Some of the agencies
interested in participating in a Request for Proposal (RFP) had made the
capital investment in new buildings. SVACA and Silicon Valley Humane
Society had more modern facilities. Staff did not believe PAAS's high level of
service could be duplicated by other entities.
Council Member Schmid stated the loss of Mountain View as a partner
reduced both revenue and expenditures. Reducing both revenue and
expenditures created a deficit in FY 2012 of approximately $529,000. With
reductions in revenues and expenditures, that gap would decrease to
$477,000 in FY 2013. Outsourcing services to SVACA would cost the City
$300,000 annually plus a $200,000 capital investment. He asked if the City
would actually lose money under that proposal in FY 2013.
Ms. Antil indicated the net cost to the City was approximately $670,000
annually. With the loss of Mountain View revenue, costs to the City
increased to $1.14 million.
Council Member Schmid said expenses needed to be subtracted.
Mr. Keene indicated expenses had to be reduced in order to subtract them,
which meant potentially laying off employees.
MINUTES
Page 9 of 23
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 05/10/2012
Ms. Antil reported the City's costs would be $1.14 million with the Mountain
View loss and before reducing expenditures. Staff was comparing the $1.14
million cost to the $500,000 cost in the SVACA proposal, which provided a
cost reduction each year of $640,000. The options that Mr. Hagerman
discussed were ways to close that gap should the Council wish to continue
PAAS. Staff's secondary recommendation would be to close that gap
between the losses as well as the annual gap of $670,000. Staff
recommended some cuts if the Council decided to continue PAAS. Even
though revenue would be lost, Staff found it difficult to determine which
positions to cut, because the lion's share of the work was still generated
from Palo Alto animals.
Council Member Schmid noted Mountain View's contribution to PAAS was
dependent on the number of animals treated, which was 30 percent of the
total number.
Ms. Antil indicated Option 1 would reduce Staff by one animal control officer,
one volunteer coordinator and one animal control supervisor, which would
reduce service costs by slightly more than $277,000.
Council Member Schmid stated a 30 percent reduction in expenditures was
$500,000.
Ms. Antil said the percentage of the loss of revenue did not mirror the
percentage loss of Staff without reducing additional Staff. Staff was not
designated to specific communities. Even though Mountain View revenue
was lost, duties and responsibilities still had to be covered by Staff.
Mr. Keene stated the Council would have to determine whether a 30 percent
reduction in expenses was feasible and whether it had an effect greater than
30 percent on service levels.
Council Member Schmid inquired if the contrast was a 100 percent reduction
with outsourcing.
Mr. Keene answered no, because services would not be outsourced to
nothing. The Council would have to outsource to an alternative it felt was
worthwhile in comparison to other alternatives. Staff was presenting the
numbers to the best of their knowledge, because an RFP had not been
issued for any alternative services.
Council Member Schmid asked if the alternative was to outsource to SVACA
as well as maintain part of PAAS.
MINUTES
Page 10 of 23
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 05/10/2012
Ms. Antil stated the original recommendation was to fully outsource.
Council Member Espinosa commented the Council appreciated the services,
amenities and policies provided by PAAS, but it was in a difficult position of
weighing all City services. He asked for Staff's feedback on the suggestion
of a task force to extend the timeline with different goals in mind.
Ms. Stadler stated a task force was an excellent idea to provide different
options. Staff would welcome any input to deliver better services and
provide other alternatives.
Mr. Keene indicated the current discussion was a prelude to the Finance
Committee discussions from the financial perspective. Council wanted to
obtain input from the community which would be beneficial to both
Committees’ considerations. Typically, the Finance Committee’s financial
recommendations were included in the Budget process, because the Finance
Committee could consider all the other Budget decisions simultaneously.
Any decision had a potential ripple effect that hit some other area of the
City. These decisions were not made in isolation, particularly from the long-
term point of view. If the Policy and Services Committee wanted to
recommend to the Finance Committee a different decision horizon, then they
should determine the cost implications of that delay and what should be
considered. He recommended the Committee take a broader look at all the
alternatives in order to not prejudge a conclusion. After hearing from the
public, he suggested additional discussion about timeframes.
Council Member Espinosa understood some neighboring communities would
end contracts with San Mateo County in the next two years. He asked how
the Council could make decisions well in advance of knowing whether or not
those cities were potential revenue sources. Other issues were longer term
facility needs and whether or not those facility needs would be shared with
partners. He asked if the numbers for those needs were realistic.
Mr. Keene reported the City needed to invest more in facilities across the
City including the animal shelter if it remained. There was a range of
investments that could be made, and some of the numbers were on the high
side. There was flexibility in future capital costs for the shelter.
Council Member Espinosa asked if the hybrid model included some staffing of
PAAS to maintain service levels.
Ms. Antil felt services would still be provided if PAAS was outsourced, but
there would be a delay in timing. Staff had asked SVACA if the City could
purchase a higher level of service. SVACA staff indicated they had a model
MINUTES
Page 11 of 23
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 05/10/2012
that worked and were not interested in offering more service. This idea
would be better vetted through an RFP rather than a conversation. Staff
considered cross-training existing Staff to respond to some types of
complaints; however, an animal control officer or police officer would have to
respond to complaints involving animal interaction. To prevent police
officers from responding to calls during the day, Staff would have to be
supplemented in some way. Staff did not find a scenario that saved the
same amount of money as completely outsourcing.
Council Member Espinosa asked if Staff found a scenario that saved some
money and kept the same level of service.
Ms. Antil answered no. The City could keep the same level of service for
some services if code enforcement officers were assigned those duties. The
City could not retain the same level of service across all services and still
have the same savings. Someone had suggested using volunteers to
provide some services; however, volunteers were not likely to want to pick
up dead animals and those kinds of things. Staff could not find a scenario
that provided the same services, because of the cost of employees.
Council Member Espinosa remarked that outsourcing services reduced
service levels; and staffing to maintain service levels did not provide the
same cost savings but did provide some cost savings.
Chair Holman noted Staff's comments that all facilities were subsidized to
some extent, and asked if Staff had a range of what a subsidy might be.
Mr. Hagerman indicated Staff reviewed shelters operated primarily by
municipalities in the area. Those ranged from an 80 percent subsidy for
SVACA to 55 percent for the City of San Jose. Palo Alto's subsidy was
between those two.
Chair Holman inquired if contract services could be used to fill the gaps left
by Staff layoffs.
Ms. Antil reported the City had contracts with a few veterinarians who filled
in when the Staff veterinarian was not available. Otherwise, all were City
employees.
Chair Holman asked if the difference was due to the different benefit impacts
from hourly workers.
Ms. Antil indicated two employees were hourly and the rest were full-time
FTEs.
MINUTES
Page 12 of 23
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 05/10/2012
Chair Holman inquired whether the retiree impacts would change if the PAAS
closed.
Mr. Keene stated the City might carry a share for the time that people
worked for the City, but the City had already been paying that. The City
would clearly avoid any future costs that would accrue.
Chair Holman asked how many visitors the shelter had per day.
Ms. Antil replied approximately 65 visitors per day.
Chair Holman inquired whether distance to a new facility would be a factor in
policy impacts.
Ms. Antil stated SVACA had some volunteers from Palo Alto, and Palo Alto
had volunteers from other areas. Those volunteers who w ere strongly
committed would travel the distance. There was no method to estimate the
number of visitors that would travel from Palo Alto to another facility.
Chair Holman asked if the numbers for services provided to animals from
outside partner communities was accurate.
Ms. Antil indicated some of the traffic from outside the area was related to
rescue groups.
Ms. Stadler reported Staff had tracked services in the spay and neuter clinic
and vaccination clinic by ZIP codes. That information was fairly accurate,
because it was taken from payment receipts.
Chair Holman recalled Mountain View's capital investment in SVACA's facility
was $300,000. Do to the number of animals being managed for Palo Alto
being higher than Mountain View's number; Chair Holman believed Palo
Alto's capital investment would also be higher than Mountain View's. Chair
Holman asked if Staff knew the actual amount of capital investment the City
would have to pay SVACA.
Ms. Antil answered no. Until Staff issued an RFP, they would not know that
amount definitely. Staff had been told verbally that the capital investment
could be $300,000, or slightly less, because the other member cities had
made the largest part of the capital investment. SVACA wanted Palo Alto's
business, so they might quote a different capital investment amount. The
first year of costs would be higher than the ongoing costs.
MINUTES
Page 13 of 23
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 05/10/2012
Chair Holman asked for the anticipated cost of the RFP process.
Ms. Antil reported staff did not intend to hire a consultant to write the RFP,
so the cost would be the time of existing Staff members.
Chair Holman asked if Staff had considered partnering with school programs
and dog training to enhance the community as well as raise revenues for the
facility.
Ms. Stadler indicated Staff had planned to provide dog training and
classroom events when Sunnyvale was considering partnering with the City.
However, the current facility did not have an area suitable for those
purposes. Staff believed the community would be interested, but had not
considered the cost to change the facility and projected revenue; these were
potential means for generating revenue.
Katarina Merk came here to tell the Committee that it was potentially
making a huge mistake. Closing the shelter would not just upset many
people; it would also kill the chance of many adorable animals finding a
loving home. This conversation, Ms. Merk thinks, has proven that the
Committee was mostly thinking about money, and not about the animals.
She asked the Committee to keep the shelter open because the animals
deserved it. The animals had been treated badly and had never known a
nice home. Selling the land to a private investor would not be a good idea;
it would be a horrible mistake. Life is not about money, it is about the
pursuit of happiness. The City had limited funds, but could find creative
ways to keep the shelter in the community.
Scottie Zimmerman was one of the 50 volunteers at PAAS. She was
recruited, trained, and managed by the volunteer coordinator. Eliminating
the Volunteer Coordination position could result in the loss of volunteers.
That position was important to the work of the volunteers. She and others
had been collecting signatures to save the shelter, and had received
donations for the shelter. Someone was reviewing the possibility of a
501(c)(3), Non-Profit Friends Group. Other groups had sponsors and
donated buttons on their websites. There were so many ways to raise
funds, including Corporate Sponsorships. For example, Google had paid for
the spaying and neutering of feral cats. More ways could be found to raise
funds if given a task force or more time.
Ted Aberg lived in Palo Alto for almost 40 years and had obtained two cats
from a shelter. His three grandchildren had two pets to enjoy and learn how
to care for. The animals provided comfort, love, and relaxation; they
enhanced quality of life. There were many domestic animals in Palo Alto
MINUTES
Page 14 of 23
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 05/10/2012
that have benefited the majority of residents in Palo Alto. Residents need
PAAS for their sake, as well as the animals' sake. He asked the Committee
to please help them.
Leonor Delgado was an Humane Educator. Ms. Delgado says PAAS had long
been active in education and community through school and group visits,
along with the visits from Animal Control Officers. Given Palo Alto's often
stated strong commitment to quality education, she asked why the City
Council would want to toss aside locally based humane education currently
shared by PAAS and Palo Alto Humane Society. She asked if paths and
other similar embellishments at Rinconada Park were a higher priority than
the long history of locally based humane efforts, caring for animals, and
educating children. Finally, the penchant for spending money on luxuries,
rather than on what most considered necessities, she thought was
disturbing. Thanks to the Spay and Neuter Clinic, lower income people from
neighboring communities and rescuers could afford to fix their animals,
leading to fewer homeless animals. The Vaccination Clinic was frequented
by the residents of East Palo Alto as well, who were historically lower
income. She asked where the sense was in responsibility to the greater
community and to the animals. She asked the Committee not to destroy the
shelter, an invaluable local service and institution.
Carol Hyde, Palo Alto Humane Society, asked the Committee to keep animal
services local. The Humane Society's proposal focused on unrealized
efficiencies and potential income from the Spay and Neuter Clinic. Reducing
the deficit would allow time for a working group to plan for sustainable
animal services. The issue of animal control arrangements was complex and
affected families and their pets. The Council should not be hasty in deciding
this issue. Ms. Hyde hopes the Committee will realize this and allow time for
careful discussion of different models. Animal services need to stay in Palo
Alto. Outsourcing would mark a radical departure from the principle, which
has guided PAAS since 1955: the concept of safe community. Having a safe
community means that stray animals would be picked up immediately and
returned safely to their owners. Animal Control Officers from somewhere
else could not do that. Stray and surrendered animals were entrusted to the
City. They relied on the City to take care of them. In 1961, Stanford
University asked the City for permission to seize animals from the shelter for
laboratory research. The shelter Master refused, stating that it violated the
principles on which the shelter was founded. That was different from the
current issue, but was also the same. Animals entrusted to the City relied
on good and wise policies for the animal’s lives and well-being. The Palo
Alto Humane Society did not believe that transporting animals to crowded
facilities, with uncertain fates, constituted good and caring stewardship. She
MINUTES
Page 15 of 23
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 05/10/2012
asked the Committee to allow the PAAS to continue to operate and to create
a task force to carefully and thoroughly plan for the future.
Jay Levin, who was reading the remarks of David Guison, a person who was
unable to attend was interested in the welfare of animals, dogs and cats
especially. His remarks pertained to keeping public ownership of the land
parcel in question. Mr. Guison stated that the land was the primary resource
of the community and without it; there could be no community, no homes,
no businesses, and no public services. Land was the long-term, and
sometimes short-term, chief resource of the community. Although the
needs of community changed over time, the satisfaction of needs wou ld
occur through the use of land. He urged the Committee and the City Council
to retain the land in question. At some point in the future, there would be a
need for some community service, and this parcel could be the location for
satisfying that need. If the City sold the parcel today, it would have to
purchase the parcel at some time in the future. It was a philosophical
perspective, but also a prudent and practical perspective. Whatever course
the Committee took relative to PAAS, it should recommend that the parcel
remain the community's. It should either serve the community directly
through some purpose such as the shelter or through the revenue it could
generate in perpetuity by being leased to commercial activity.
Sandra Drake and Raymond Myer stated distant shelters would be less
useful and less used by the local population. They had received beloved
canine companionship and good animal care from PAAS, as well has having a
trusted place to take lost animals. They urged the Committee not to charge
a fee to surrender animals, which could result in people simply abandoning
animals. An outsourced entity would charge at least $150 to accept an
animal.
Jill Cody said the report was good in that it represented the facts. She listed
various calls to which animal control officers responded. One facility was 17
miles away, and another 16 miles away. The question was how to innovate
the City out of this problem rather than how to reduce the deficit. She had
facilitated many task forces, and marvelous ideas resulted from them.
Judy Adams suggested increasing revenue through creative means. She
wanted a sign indicating Palo Alto was an animal companion city as well as a
tree city. The quality of life of all citizens and companion animals was at
risk. The proposals for future study and innovation was important. A task
force would give other cities time to consider their needs and perhaps
partner with Palo Alto.
MINUTES
Page 16 of 23
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 05/10/2012
William Warrior thanked the Council for funding PAAS in extraordinary ways.
The community was grateful in ways too numerous to mention. If PAAS was
closed, he asked the Committee to make a provision for the PAAS mascot, a
cat who did not work to union scale and would not request 2.5 percent.
Rita Morgin related the story of finding her son's lost pet at the PAAS. Her
story was one of hundreds that happened because of the high quality of care
and service provided by the Staff at PAAS. Residents should not lose this
service due to lack of funds. She volunteered to manage the Main
Community Garden to eliminate the paid position of Community Garden
Coordinator and to provide those funds to the PAAS.
Nancy Petersen was a happy client of the PAAS. She wanted to be a part of
the solution of keeping a high performing shelter open. She was hea rtened
by the Committee discussion. Extending the study period was important.
There was a way to make PAAS work for the City.
Luke Stengel stated for the past 40 years, Palo Alto residents had been able
to get an animal control officer to their neighbor hood in a few minutes to
save the life of a cat or dog. For the past 40 years, the Mid -Peninsula region
had a place for low cost spay and neuter and vaccination services. For the
last 40 years, thousands of cats and dogs had lived at the shelter until th ey
could find a permanent home. It was staggering to consider the
immeasurable good the shelter had created for the community and the lives
of cats and dogs. Its work was not done. He implored the Committee to
keep the shelter open.
Elena Kogan stated the Bay area was an affluent region with real estate to
support the community. It was ironic that one of the wealthiest areas in the
world could not find enough money to keep a small shelter open. It was
strange to balance the budget on the backs of the most defenseless. She
refused to believe the community could not find money for animals that
were part of everyone's lives. She asked the City to find ways to keep the
shelter open.
Rene Flexer had a terrible experience with retrieving a lost pet from Santa
Clara. Residents of Barron Park did not want Santa Clara to provide animal
services. She called SVACA for information concerning spaying and
neutering kittens, and reached a message which stated someone would
return her call in three days. PAAS returned calls within minutes. She
attended the Mountain View meeting, and learned Mountain View would save
only $40,000 annually while paying $300,000. SVACA did not have a
veterinarian onsite each day the center was open, and charged $150 to
MINUTES
Page 17 of 23
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 05/10/2012
accept animals. Its website stated it was not accepting surrender animals at
the current time.
Mary Donoghue knew SVACA charged $150 or $160 per animal to surrender
an animal. Irresponsible pet owners would dump their pets anywhere, but
some pet owners were forced by economic difficulties to surrender their
pets. These people could not afford to pay to surrender their pets. This
would result in Palo Alto having more feral cats and dogs and another level
of animal control problems. Many people in Palo Alto did not know the
problem existed, and would be happy to get their pet licensed to support the
shelter. There were alternatives to closing PAAS, and a task force was a
good idea. She volunteered to help out with this effort.
Winter Dellenbach stated wildlife rescue was possibly in danger as well
because of the Cubberley issue. The City could soon be without any
services. She calculated the roundtrip miles between Palo Alto and Santa
Clara for the same number of visitors per day to be 28,000 a month. Fewer
visitors meant less quality care for animals at that shelter. She expressed
concerns about the interest in using the land for other purposes. PAAS
would be an appropriate public benefit as opposed to the parking situation at
355 Alma.
Carol Schumacher was an owner of the Mid-Peninsula Animal Hospital in
Menlo Park. She had worked with the Palo Alto Humane Society as a board
member. Thousands of her clients used PAAS. Closing PAAS would be an
undue burden for them. She was also familiar with the economics of a
veterinary practice, and has some experience with models of high-speed,
low-cost spay and neuter techniques. She suggested spay and neuter fees
could be too low, and had room to grow while remaining low cost. Revenue
could be increased by performing more spay and neuters and by charging
more. There could be voucher plans to assist low-income clients. She
volunteered for the task force, if it was created. Having services removed
from Palo Alto and Menlo Park would not help with emergency preparedness
plans.
Christina Peck co-founded the Stanford Cat Network at Stanford University
to rescue abandoned cats on campus, and co-founded Fat Cat Rescue, which
adopted out abandoned cats and helped with spay and neuter. She had
taken over 3,000 cats to the City's spay and neuter clinic. She understood
the Council's need to close the budget deficit and to develop a sustainable,
long-term solution to providing animal services. Pets shared the world and
people felt responsible for their care. The issue dese rved a careful,
thorough, and thoughtful analysis than had been presented thus far. She
supported the Palo Alto Humane Society proposal to establish a working
MINUTES
Page 18 of 23
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 05/10/2012
group to explore ways to provide animal services to residents of Palo Alto
and to reduce the City's budget deficit.
Christine Witzel asked the Committee to estimate the cost of unintended
consequences of outsourcing. Others had alluded to the likely increase in
stray and feral animals. SVACA's website indicated surrenders would most
likely be euthanized. She encouraged the Committee to spend its efforts
reviewing ways to increase revenue through philanthropy and services.
Douglas Moran in deciding the appropriate levels of service, he urged the
Committee to consider that seemingly small differences could have outsized
impacts on people. He was concerned that this aspect had not received
adequate attention. Experts told pet owners to be aggressive in searching
for their lost pets, because of the many mistakes that happened at shelters.
He operated his neighborhood's email service and gave priority to lost and
found pet messages, because of the experiences of neighbors and family.
He noted the stress and time spent by pet owners searching for their lost
pets and by people who found pets. A time response by animal services
could directly connect the finder to the owner without the pet having to go
into the shelter.
Alice Smith, as an outsourcing lawyer, warned the Committee that services
not stated in a contract would not be provided. Once PAA S was outsourced,
it could not be restarted without a greater cost. She urged caution and care.
She had reported dead animals, and PAAS had responded immediately.
Outsourcing would require ten hours for a response, 700 calls meant 7,000
hours of dead animals close to homes and children. That was a health
hazard. She was also concerned about not having responsible officials to
address issues. PAAS was more important to her than the Airport. Stanford
University could be inveigled to be a part without having to go to the
County.
Lorraine Amirian Parker stated no one had addressed the issue of finding
pets in a disaster. Red Cross shelters did not accept pets. The City was
attempting to establish a program to care for pets in the event of a disaster.
The City would need experienced animal control officers to catch and care
for pets, as well as a place to house pets. This issue was as important as
libraries, art commissions, and the Airport. She suggested letting citizens
decide through a vote.
Antonia DeMatto was a full-time volunteer with Community Cat Rescue. As
a business person, she had learned that paying for services later rather than
sooner resulted in higher costs. She concurred with previous comments
regarding low-cost spay and neuter services. Surrender services were one
MINUTES
Page 19 of 23
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 05/10/2012
of the most important services offered by a shelter. If owners could not
surrender pets, the pets would be abandoned. Those pets then created
large feral populations. That was an increasing animal control cost for the
future. SVACA was not accepting surrender pets at the current time, and
could not state when it might accept surrender pets in the future.
Rosemary Schmele had learned the Humane Society of Silicon Valley (HSSV)
had a three-month waiting period to surrender dogs and at least one month
for cats, if it agreed to take a surrendered pet. To apply to surrender a cat,
HSSV required the owner to complete a four-page information sheet, pay a
$160 fee, and provide the veterinary records and proof that the a nimal was
current with vaccinations. These requirements alone probably eliminated
many pets from consideration. Next, there was a 45 -minute interview, after
which HSSV would schedule an assessment of the pet and determine if it
would take the pet. HSSV cited temperament and health as issues, but it
probably also considered adoptability factors such as age, breed, color and
cuteness. If HSSV did not accept the pet, there was no other place because
SVACA was not accepting surrenders. HSSV and SVACA did not have the
capacity, and did not currently provide these services to their contracting
cities. With the addition of more animals from Palo Alto and possibly Los
Altos and Los Altos Hills, the situation became worse. SVACA in particular
would provide a lower and more dismal level of services to all cities with
which they contracted. Palo Alto would not receive the services it paid for,
and the residents and animals would suffer. SVACA was operating over their
actual service capacity. Any representation otherwise did not take into
account actual animal service levels.
Cheryl O’ Conner understood that the City had to cut costs, but also
understood that the City overspent in some areas. She suggested
eliminating double dipping by retirees to fund the PAAS. She suggested dog
training programs could generate revenue.
Theresa Morris had volunteered at PAAS. PAAS provided a community
service through opportunities for pet lovers to interact with pets. She felt
the residents of Los Altos would be interested in knowing more about this
issue, and perhaps would be willing to pressure the Los Altos government to
pay more for the service. She felt elimination of the volunteer coordinator
would increase costs. Outsourcing would cost the Police Departments in all
the cities a great deal of money.
Jessica Koran did not feel different fees for residents versus non-residents
were an issue. She questioned Staff's figures, because an RFP had not been
issued. Discussing cost savings without a formal response to an RFP seemed
premature. She hoped the Council would perform further research.
MINUTES
Page 20 of 23
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 05/10/2012
Catherine Kirkman opposed the PAAS closure, and supported the proposal of
the Palo Alto Humane Society. She also supported a friends of the shelter
initiative. She reported Stanford contracted with Crane Pest Control for pick
up, and dogs were taken to Silicon Valley Humane Society or Morgan Hill. It
was poor fiscal management to dismantle vital City services to offset pension
costs.
Annette Herz had utilized PAAS neuter and spay services for seven cats.
She felt lucky to live in a City with such services. Palo Alto was known as a
progressive City, and it was mind-boggling not to have PAAS.
A Redwood City resident said she volunteered at PAAS in the spay and
neuter clinic. She had called her community shelter about a dead animal on
a sidewalk. They picked up the animal three days later. That was a health
hazard, as well as an emotional and psychological hazard for residents. She
related the story of a resident surrendering a pregnant cat and a male cat.
She did not believe the pet owner would pay $320 to surrender those
animals. She urged the Committee to consider those issues in making its
decision.
Carol Novello, from the Silicon Valley Humane Society, urged the C ouncil to
consider seriously the request for a task force. Physical proximity was
critical for animals brought to the shelter and for owners to find lost animals.
Taking the time to carefully and thoroughly plan for the future through a
task force was critically important. Silicon Valley Humane Society had not
received a response from the City to its phone requests to assist in this
process. It wanted to assist in finding a solution that worked for the citizens
and animals of Palo Alto.
Suzy Heisele worked with the Palo Alto Humane Society and HSSV. Rather
than closing PAAS, she suggested updating and supporting it. People paid
more for adoptions at HSSV, because HSSV of the state of the facility.
Charles Gary stated the emotional case had been made. He noted the ideas
of reducing costs, fundraising efforts, increased mileage costs for residents,
some savings from the loss of the Mountain View contract, and dead animals
not being picked up. He felt the City could be in the position of losing
money if services were reduced.
MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member
XXX to request Staff issue a Request for Proposal for Animal Services while
at the same time working to define expected budget savings and to define
clearly what would be lost in the service levels for Palo Alto and to continue
MINUTES
Page 21 of 23
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 05/10/2012
conversations with San Mateo County cities considering the possibilities of
revenue enhancements.
MOTION FAILED DUE TO A LACK OF A SECOND
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member
Espinosa to recommend the City Council; 1) Continue the Animal Services
Program and find not less than $100,000 in increased revenue from a
combination of increased payments by Los Altos and Los Altos Hills,
increased non-resident fees, and increased license fees, and reduce
expenses by approximately $200,000 for Fiscal Year 2013 to cover the
$300,000 lost from Mountain View, 2) request the City Manager appoint a
task force to report, by the end of the current calendar year, suggestions to
him for further revenue increases, and reduced expenses, with the goal of
eliminating the gap caused by Mountain View, plus one half of the remainder
of the amount Palo Alto paid for Animal Services to be effective by Fiscal
Year 2014, the task force will also make recommendations to totally
eliminate the amount paid by the City for Animal Services by Fiscal Year
2016.
Council Member Klein remarked that pet ownership was not unusual in Palo
Alto. He was impressed by the public's comments and the number of emails
received. He was disappointed that most emails urged the Council to fund
PAAS without a consideration of revenue and expenditures. He did not
expect commercial businesses to solve the funding problem. The newspaper
columnist did not indicate the City had a net reduction of over 60 employees
in the last three or four years.
Mr. Keene reported 10 percent of the City's general tax-supported Staff had
been eliminated in the past three years.
Council Member Klein was not impressed with the idea of outsourcing.
Outsourcing was not always a good idea and not a magic solution. He did
not think residents would drive to other communities for services for their
animals. Outsourcing might be feasible in dollars and cents, but that did not
include a dramatic reduction in the service level. He deliberately set goals
for a task force. The Council had been moving too fast in that the idea was
presented to the Council just six weeks ago. The Palo Alto Humane Society
contained many good ideas, and perhaps some of the ideas would be
feasible. It had the desired increase in revenue and reduction in expenses.
He hoped a task force would have more ideas about improving services and
making them economical.
MINUTES
Page 22 of 23
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 05/10/2012
Council Member Espinosa stated the COMMITTEE reviewed policies across
the different departments within the City. The Finance Committee would
take up the same issue, and they had a different perspective. Following
that, the full Council would consider this issue. He agreed with comments
that there was no panacea. The City had led the State on reform with
regard to unions, and recognized the need to make significant changes
across all labor units. He thanked the public and particularly the Humane
Society for recognizing the need to generate revenue and reduce c osts and
for proposing creative solutions. Rarely had he seen an organization present
a comprehensive set of ideas like the Humane Society. He encouraged the
public to make a personal investment to engage in this issue for the long
term. A friends organization could work, but it required a great deal of effort
over many years.
Council Member Schmid agreed it was a tough situation. Time was
necessary and more information critical to making it work. This gave
residents an opportunity to work with the Council.
Chair Holman also was impressed by the Humane Society's proposal. She
invited citizens to remain involved, because civic engagement was the
means to solving problems. There were limitations on what the Council
could do, because of legal requirements and because those changes affected
lives. This was a financial issue as well as a Palo Alto value which the
community had held for more than 100 years. It was also a health issue not
just for the animals, but also for many people who had animals. She offered
a friendly amendment to the Motion to include Carol Hyde of the Palo Alto
Humane Society and Carol Schumacher of Mid -Peninsula Animal Hospital on
a task force.
Council Member Klein stated if the Committee specified the members, it
could become a Brown Act committee.
Ms. Stump reported it would be treated as a Brown Act committee if the
Council appointed the advisory committee, and it would need to follow those
procedures. The Motion was carefully drafted to direct the City Manager to
appoint the task force to advise him. That was an appropriate way to
proceed to avoid the rubric of the Brown Act.
Chair Holman hoped the City Manager would include Carol Hyde, Carol
Schumacher, and Carol Novello in the committee.
Mr. Keene noted different factors of the public attended Council meetings
each week depending on the issue being discussed. There was a
constituency and demand for each of the City's services. He wanted to use
MINUTES
Page 23 of 23
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 05/10/2012
these discussions as an opportunity to create greater understanding rather
than divisions. The real challenge was reconciling the differences over the
years. Services could be performed better, more money could be saved,
and revenues could be restructured, but that was not easy work. He
understood the intent of the Motion, and hoped Staff would not be bound by
the stated metrics if they could do better in a particular timeframe. The less
the Council created savings this year, the greater the deficit that would
impact other program or service areas. He invited the public to come to any
meeting after budget discussions were completed to better understand the
City and Council actions. The City would be better with citizens who
understood a range of issues.
Chair Holman stated the Council had made critical and serious decisions
about important services. Based on the public turnout, PAAS was an
important service. She assumed the Motion did not preclude such things as
fundraising, and asked residents to remain engaged with this effort. She
hoped expenditures were driven by policy.
Council Member Klein repeated the Motion:
1. Do not at the present time outsource PAAS;
2. For FY 2013, Staff find a combination of reduced expenditures and additional
income to at least equal the gap created by Mountain View's departure,
which was approximately $300,000, or $100,000 in increased revenues and
$200,000 from reduced expenses; and,
3. The City Manager appoint a task force to advise him on PAAS programs, and
that a) a report would be due to the City Manager by the end of the calendar
year; b) report recommendations would eliminate the gap caused by
Mountain View's departure and also eliminate not less than one half of the
remainder of the budget gap for PAAS for FY 2014; and, c) report
recommendations would eliminate the remaining gap for FY 2016.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m.
Finance Committee
1
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
6:00 PM
Special Meeting
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Council Chambers
REVISED
Roll Call
Oral Communications
Agenda Items
1. City Clerk Budget (continued from 05/10/12)
2. Police Budget
3. Fire Budget
Future Meetings and Agendas
Adjournment
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the Public are entitled to directly address the City Council/Committee concerning any item
that is described in the notice of this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish
to address the Council/Committee on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker
request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers or by the City Clerk, and
deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on
the speaker card in order to speak to the Council/Committee, but it is very helpful.
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA)
Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or
programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance.
2 May 15, 2012
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Status of Referral Items in Committee
Referral
Date
Action
Date
Item Title/Status Description
Status
2011 Q4
2012
Fiber to the Premises
Discussion on the future direction of the fiber
telecommunications business
TBD
2011 Q4
2012
Debt Service Policy Update
Staff committed to return with an updated policy
after the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee
report
On target
10/18/11 Q1
2012
SAP Security Audit
Return to Finance with an update on the
implementation progress
Target date
6/5/12
10/18/11 Q2
2012
Cubberley Leases
Return to Finance with a list of leases at the
Cubberley center
In process
11/15/11 TBD Utilities Undergrounding
Return to Finance Committee with several
specific options for action regarding the electric
overhead to underground conversion program
In process
12/6/11 Q2
2012
Library Project Audit – Bondable Labor Costs
Return to Finance with a discussion on options
for covering project labor costs with bond
funding
In process
Finance Committee
MINUTES
Page 1 of 40
Special Meeting
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
ROLL CALL
Chairperson Shepherd called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. in the
Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Council Member Burt, Price, Shepherd (Chair), Scharff
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
AGENDA ITEMS
1. City Clerk Budget (continued from 05/10/12)
Acting Financial Analyst Christine Paras reported Staff had included
additional detail requested at the last Finance Committee (FC) meeting. In
Memorandum Attachment 1, Staff included detail by Division for salary,
benefit and non-personnel costs. The item in question was the $200,000
increase in Council Support Services. She noted a $99,000 increase in
benefits and a $100,000 increase in non-personnel costs. She explained
$60,000 of non-personnel costs was an increase for election publication
services, which would be reallocated to Election/Conflict of Interest Division.
The item in question was the $19,000 increase in total for the City Clerk
Budget. There was a $99,000 increase in Council Support Services, with
offsetting decreases in the other Divisions. Those decreases were driven by
the change in allocation methodology for the benefits allocation. In prior
years, Staff had used Full-Time Equivalents (FTE) to allocate the costs.
Now, Staff was using the employees' actual pension and healthcare costs.
Staff felt this was a more accurate method to allocate benefits to the various
Divisions across the City Clerk's Budget and Department wide.
Chair Shepherd inquired if Staff wanted a Motion to approve tentatively this
Budget.
MINUTES
Page 2 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
Administrative Services Director Lalo Perez answered yes. This level of
detail was not included in the document. If the FC felt this level of detail
would be helpful for Staff to include as part of the template for all
Departments, Staff could make that change in the next set of documents.
Chair Shepherd noted each Division had non-personnel costs, and asked if
that contained the shifting of funds from the Clerk's Budget. For example,
Council Support Services had a $100,000 change. That category contained
the specific items Staff had reported at the FC's last meeting.
Mr. Perez stated non-personnel costs would show the shifts. For example, in
the Election Costs, contract costs would show up there. If there was a
reallocation from one grouping to another it would also show up there.
Council Member Burt inquired if the change in reporting methodology more
accurately indicated the allocation of benefits.
Mr. Perez responded correct.
Council Member Burt stated it was almost impossible to compare year-over-
year changes, because they were not apples-to-apples. He thought that
point should be made up front, so that everyone understood what had
happened and how.
Mr. Perez stated Staff would reread the explanations on how to read the
document, and discuss that. It was a concern, but Staff felt the change was
necessary to better reflect cost allocations.
MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member
Shepherd to tentatively approve the City Clerk’s Budget.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
2. Police Budget
Chair Shepherd noted the Police Budget included Animal Services. She
wanted to have public comment after Staff presentation.
City Manager James Keene stated the Council charged the Finance
Committee (FC) with reviewing and reconciling the Proposed Budget, then
forwarding a recommendation to the City Council. The first component of
MINUTES
Page 3 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
the Police Budget was Animal Services. The policy question concerning
Animal Services was should the City accept Staff's recommendation to
outsource Animal Services to another agency as a cost-saving measure, or
continue providing Animal Services. The Policy & Services Committee
(P&SC) rejected the recommendation to outsource Animal Services, and
suggested the City provide Animal Services with reduced costs. Their
recommendation was to reduce City costs in the first year by $300,000,
comprised of $100,000 of revenue increases and $200,000 of expenditure
decreases. P&SC also recommended subsequent levels of reductions in
Fiscal Years 2014 and 2016. The FC was not obligated to accept and react
to P&SC recommendations. Staff suggested presenting the Animal Services
Budget and financial picture. He proposed a Budget with a series of revenue
recommendations, maintenance of services, and program and staffing cuts
across a range of City programs and services. That Proposed Budget had a
deficit of $1 million, but Staff proposed drawing on a Reserve for two one -
time expenditures to cover that $1 million deficit. Staff's focus was to
ensure the FC was aware of the impacts its changes to the Proposed Budget
had on the Fiscal Year 2013 and subsequent Budgets.
Sr. Financial Analyst Christine Paras noted the inclusion of an interim
organizational chart on page 191. The reorganization a nd merger of Fire
and Police would be completed in 2014. Citywide costs totaled
approximately $1 million, with personnel benefit costs increasing by $1
million. Of these benefit costs, $500,000 was attributed to healthcare and
pension, and $800,000 was an increase related to the retiree medical
payment. The Department had a revenue decrease of $1.4 million, of which
$300,000 was related to the departure of Mountain View from Animal
Services. This $300,000 amount represented the prorated amount of
revenue lost from November through the end of the year. Outsourcing
Animal Services would result in a $900,000 decrease in revenue loss. The
Department had various revenue losses related to staffing reductions. There
was $200,000 in revenue adjustments to meet actuals, based on Staff's
analysis of historical trends for various revenue streams within the
Department. It included administrative citations, false alarm fees, penal
code violations, and impound fees. Expense decreases for the Department
totaled $2.5 million. Other than outsourcing Animals Service, the
Department proposed a redeployment of Staff to patrol which equaled a
decrease of $1.13 million. The Department proposed freezing 6 Full-Time
Equivalents (FTE) of line-level Staff and 1 FTE of command-level Staff.
There was an $80,000 increase for a Police Services Utilization Study. Staff
proposed a decrease for the Track Watch Contract, which would be funded in
the Stanford Development Agreement Fund. Outsourcing Animal Services
resulted in a savings of $1.38 million. Changes in FTEs totaled a savings of
$3.27 million, and included eliminating 13.14 FTEs for Animal Services,
MINUTES
Page 4 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
freezing 6 FTEs for redeployment of Staff to patrol, freezing 1 FTE Police
Captain, and reallocating 2.5 FTEs administrative personnel from the Police
Department to the Fire Department.
Mr. Keene suggested viewing Fiscal Year 2012 as a typical budget year for
Animal Services. The City had a cost-sharing agreement with Los Altos, Los
Altos Hills and Mountain View to provide Animal Services. Mountain View
decided to leave the partnership effective November 1, 2012 , and requested
a transition period beginning July 1, 2012. That request was denied. The
City of Palo Alto's net cost for providing Animal Services was $700,000 in a
typical year. The net loss for the City in 2013 would be an additional
$300,000, because the City would lose two-thirds of Mountain View revenue
for the year. The net cost for Palo Alto and the two remaining cities would
be $1 million. In the Proposed Budget, Staff inserted a target number based
on information that was not the result of a specific Request for Proposal
(RFP). If Animal Services was outsourced, the City could have a net cost in
Fiscal Year 2013 of $500,000 based on the target number. If Animal
Services was kept in-house, the Budget for Fiscal Year 2013 would have a
net gap of $500,000. The P&SC recommendation left a $200,000 shortfall in
the Proposed Budget without requiring new money or shifting costs to other
programs. He suggested the real number for the FC's consideration was
$500,000. If the FC made $500,000 in cuts or revenue increases this year,
then net costs would be $1.2 million the following year. If the FC made
$500,000 in revenue increases or cost reductions in 2013, the following year
the FC would need to increase revenues $200,000. If the FC agreed to
retain Animal Services in-house, it would need to cover the $500,000 gap
this year, while knowing there could be another $200,000 gap the following
year. The Humane Society's recommendations included more than
$400,000 in expenditure reductions and $400,000 in revenue increases.
These recommendations were conceptually good, but practically challenging.
Staff thought any transition, whether outsourcing or maintaining, would not
be wrapped up by the beginning of the Fiscal Year on July 1, 2012. All of
the numbers presented by Staff assumed the City would remain in a status
quo situation through the first third of the Fiscal Year. The real impact of
this decision would occur over the final two-thirds of the Fiscal Year.
Expenditure reductions meant eliminating Staff and service impact
reductions. There could be economies of existing scale or diseconomies of
scale; revenue-sharing agreements might not match up with service shifts.
He could not imagine closing a $500,000 gap without rethinking how to
provide services in-house. The concern with outsourcing was the change in
services. Revenues also had several challenges, such as increasing revenue
while maintaining the volume of business and providing services tied to
MINUTES
Page 5 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
demand. This was a major change and would take time to resolve. Staff
wanted the FC to be aware of the implications of these changes.
Chair Shepherd inquired whether she could have public comment twice on
one Agenda Item.
City Attorney Molly Stump stated she had discretion in managing the public
comment process, as long as the public had an opportunity to speak before
the Committee took any action.
Chair Shepherd asked if Staff was finished with their presentation.
Mr. Keene answered no.
Sr. Financial Analyst Amber Cameron reported Option 1 was a reduction in
supervisory and management capacity as well as a slight reduction in field
services capacity. It amounted to a reduction of 2.5 FTEs, which resulted in
a $276,000 estimated expenditure savings. There would be a slight revenue
impact to the store revenue, because operations would be closed an
additional day. The net anticipated savings for that option was about
$271,000. Option 2, which provided the most net savings, would expand
Option 1 while reducing a Field Animal Control Officer and office staff and
creating a combination classification. The combination classification would
pickup duties for Animal Control during the summer (high season) and then
pickup office duties during the low season (winter). That would provide
$372,000 in expenditure reductions with the same slight revenue impact,
with a net savings of $366,000. Option 3 was a movement to mandated
services only. The City would close the spay and neuter clinic, and focus on
Animal Control Services. That would eliminate four Staff with the highest
level of expenditure reductions of $524,000; however, closing the spay and
neuter clinic would reduce revenue by approximately $330,000, resulting in
a net savings of $194,000. These were the three best options that Staff had
been able to compile with reducing Staff to offset the Mountain View revenue
loss. To continue operations with reduced levels of service would not begin
to have a net savings of $370,000. In future years, the annualized revenue
loss of $470,000 would create Budget deficits.
Mr. Keene indicated a need of $500,000, and Option 2 yielded the most
amount of money at $366,000. The City would need another $136,000 in
either revenues or other expenditure cuts. The service implications of those
cuts would be reducing half of the Animal Control Officers during a portion of
the year. One of the comparative issues between outsourcing and in-house
MINUTES
Page 6 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
services was a faster response time from in-house service. As positions
were reduced, there could be reductions in the level of service. The Humane
Society proposed $410,000 potential new revenues. It was theoretically
possible to make up the rest of that with new revenue; however, projecting
revenues was challenging. The City Attorney had reviewed the degree of
flexibility the City had under State law and different issues on raising
revenues.
Ms. Stump reported the City had a fair amount of flexibility to adjust fees for
the optional services it provided through the Animal Shelter. The FC could
raise fees and create a fee structure that maintained lower fees for residents
or member entities of the Shelter, and charge higher fees to people who
used the Shelter from outside those entities.
Council Member Burt inquired if the amounts under the options were fiscal
year impacts or prorated impacts.
Mr. Keene answered full-year cost impacts.
Council Member Burt asked if Committee Members had the Humane Society
proposal.
Mr. Keene replied yes. There were many similarities on the expenditure
side.
Chair Shepherd noted Carole Hyde was present and would speak.
Assistant City Manager Pamela Antel indicated items sold in the pet shop
operation could be purchased at warehouse discount stores; therefore, the
City did not have much traffic on those items. The Cost of Service Study
consultant was reviewing cost recovery on different pieces of the operation
within Animal Services. For example, spay and neuter services were about
61 percent cost recovery, which would indicate there was room to raise fees.
Animal Services fees were the same or slightly higher than fees charged by
similar operations. She noted 76 percent of spay and neuter clients came
from outside the four member cities, and stated they might not travel to
Palo Alto if the rates were consistent with the market place. Those were the
issues Staff was weighing and balancing with regard to fee increases.
Mr. Keene stated in many of these situations, it was not a straight linear
relationship between two factors; there might be five factors to consider.
Staff wanted to have as thorough an analysis as possible to know the risk
MINUTES
Page 7 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
being taken. He reported the net cost number in the outsourcing proposal
was based on survey information and conversation, rather than a direct
proposal. The issue was cost impacts to the City, whether Animal Services
or another program or service in the City that had to pick up the slack.
Council Member Price asked whether the reduction in Staff under Option 2
would reduce the number of hours the facility was open.
Ms. Antel reported the estimates were based on keeping the hours of
operation the same, until the facility was closed. One of the options
provided closure on potentially one day. Option 2, with the removal of two
Animal Control Officers, changed the schedule to ten hours per day, four
days per week to cover the entire week. The only way to cover the schedule
with two people rather than four was to change the schedule.
Council Member Price stated there would be a reduction in the number of
hours the program was open under these options.
Ms. Antel noted Staff had estimated a worst-case scenario. It had been
suggested that volunteers could supplement Staff to maintain the hours of
operation. In terms of certain types of regular operations, we would need to
close part of the operation because of the number of staff available.
Council Member Price noticed the Humane Society proposal included a
recommendation for additional hours on the weekend as a possibility to
bring in additional revenue. There were an infinite number of models;
however, the issue was costs for providing services and revenue options.
Ms. Antel reported Staff did not recommend Option 3; however, it was
presented to show the numbers if spay and neuter services were
discontinued.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired what the hours of operation were.
Superintendent Animal Services Sandra Stadler indicated the facility opened
at 6:00 a.m. for the spay and neuter clinic, closed at 7:30 a.m., reopened at
11:00 a.m. and remained open until 5:30 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
The facility was closed every other Friday, Sundays and holidays.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired whether that would change under Option 1.
MINUTES
Page 8 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
Ms. Antel stated Option 1 did not change the hours of ope ration with the
reduction of 3 FTEs.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired which services would change under Option 1.
Ms. Antel indicated Option 1 reduced one Animal Services Supervisor, one
Animal Control Officer, and one Volunteer Coordinator. The Volunteer
Coordinator worked in the Shelter and the community to bring in volunteers.
Animal Services currently had more than 50 volunteers who donated
approximately 3,000 hours to the Shelter. Volunteers were cost effective
and good for the health and welfare of the animals. Because the Volunteer
Coordinator was not essential to operations, that position was identified for
elimination. The Volunteer Coordinator ensured the correct number of
volunteers were present at appropriate times, and matched volunteers to
the different services.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the Humane Society proposed to reduce the
Volunteer Coordinator by 25 percent, while Staff proposed to reduce it by 50
percent.
Ms. Antel stated it was currently 0.5 FTE.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked whether the Volunteer Coordinator was full-time or
0.5 FTE.
Ms. Antel said part-time.
Vice Mayor Scharff noted the Humane Society proposed to reduce the
Volunteer Coordinator by 25 percent of $110,597, and asked if the City paid
$110,597 for a part-time position.
Ms. Antel could not speak to the Palo Alto Humane Society's proposal.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked for the salary and benefits amount for the part-
time position.
Ms. Stadler responded $56,000.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired whether the City would save $56,000 by
eliminating that position.
MINUTES
Page 9 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
Ms. Antel answered correct.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if eliminating the Volunteer Coordinator would
result in loss of volunteers.
Ms. Antel stated there would still be volunteers, but she was not sure how
they would be managed.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked how they would be coordinated without that
position.
Ms. Stadler indicated it would be very difficult to have a volunteer program
without a coordinator to recruit and train volunteers. Staff evaluated
volunteers, and if they did not fit, they could not stay. Senior volunteers,
who were well trained and had a proven track record, possibly could be
retained without a Volunteer Coordinator. If the Volunteer Coordinator and
a Supervisor were reduced, the remaining Staff would not have time to
manage volunteers, especially at the level of the current Volunteer
Coordinator.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired if a volunteer could work as Volunteer
Coordinator.
Ms. Stadler stated Staff could consider that, but no one had expressed
interest in taking over that task. Most volunteers wanted to deal with
animals rather than the office.
Mr. Keene stated the comparison of the savings in reducing the Volunteer
Coordinator position needed one correction. The proposal was to cut 25
percent of a full-time position (2 x $56,000 = $112,000), because they had
a savings of $27,000. The Humane Society factored it based on 1 FTE
rather than the actual 0.5 FTE. This gave the impression the position was
reduced to 75 percent, rather than the actual 25 percent.
Vice Mayor Scharff stated there was a range of options, and he was having
difficulty understanding the outcome in terms of costs and services for the
community. The Humane Society proposal appeared very similar to Option
2, rather than Option 1. He was not sure there was a meeting of the minds
on what the Humane Society and Staff thought the Humane Society proposal
would look like.
MINUTES
Page 10 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
Ms. Antel said the Humane Society Option 1 was very similar to Staff's
Option 2. The primary difference was part of the Humane Society proposal
was predicated on some level of revenue increase that Staff did not
completely understand.
Mr. Keene reported expenditure impact was easier to estimate, because
expenditures were known; however, revenue was challenging to project,
because it had many variables. Because both proposals reduced staffing by
two-thirds, there would be a change in the level of service.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked whether Option 2 or outsourcing provided better
service to the community.
Ms. Antel reported three Animal Control Officers currently patrolled in Palo
Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Mountain View. Under Option 2, that
number would change to one Animal Control Officer patrolling three cities.
Staff anticipated longer response times and increased activity. She
suggested the outsourced activity would mirror that in some way, because
one Animal Control Officer would patrol a larger geographic area. That
would be the most noticeable difference between Option 2 and outsourcing.
Another difference would be only members of the member community could
use that particular shelter.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired whether response times would be better with
Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority (SVACA) or Option 2.
Ms. Antel stated there could be the same delay based on implementing
Option 2 and the geographic area. Response times were currently 19 to 30
minutes, and Staff anticipated that rising to 55 minutes.
Vice Mayor Scharff understood the Humane Society's revenue proposals for
additional licensing and compliance to mean there would be better
enforcement of licensing requirements.
Ms. Antel reported some communities had an ordinance that required one of
two things. For example, private veterinarians were required to provide
rabies vaccination information to the City so that the City could enforce dog
licensing. The second required private veterinarians to issue licenses when
pets were vaccinated. The best chance for licensing compliance was through
the rabies vaccination.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked what the current licensing fee was.
MINUTES
Page 11 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
Ms. Antel said the current fee was $15 if the dog was spayed or neutered
and $35 if it was not.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired how much of the $95,000 amount resulted from
increasing the licensing fee by $5.
Ms. Stadler reported the total licensing fee was paid to the City of Palo Alto.
Staff estimated 18 percent license compliance, and felt there was room to
increase it.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired how many people licensed their dogs in Palo
Alto.
Ms. Stadler indicated Staff processed approximately 3,500 licenses a year,
and there were approximately 10,000 licenses in the City of Palo Alto. Staff
also handled licensing for the other cities.
Mr. Keene stated $17,500 a year resulted from the $5 license fee increase.
Chair Shepherd understood the $500,000 amount assumed outsourcing
would begin with the Fiscal Year on July 1, 2012; however, that would not
happen and the current status of Animal Services would continue. She
asked where the $500,000 budget number came from.
Mr. Keene reported if the City outsourced Animal Services and if $500,000
was the right number, there would be a $60,000 budget gap. If the City did
not outsource, then the gap would be $500,000.
Chair Shepherd asked for Staff's confidence level for outsourcing.
Administrator Services Director Lalo Perez stated Staff provided numbers to
SVACA, who then inflated the numbers for a cushion and provided Staff with
the estimates. It was not as good as a formal RFP, but Staff felt fairly good
with that information.
Chair Shepherd heard SVACA was full, and asked if SVACA could take
animals from Palo Alto, Los Altos and Los Altos Hills.
Ms. Antel said SVACA's director reported they would need to build out
another piece of their warehouse facility in order to accommodate the
animals.
MINUTES
Page 12 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
Chair Shepherd noted SVACA had not built out yet.
Mr. Keene stated the City would need to know the delivery time of their
building the space, whether it would be complete by November 1, 2012 or in
a year. Second, if the City moved forward with cost cutting and/or
outsourcing, it had the option of issuing an RFP to obtain a more specific
cost comparison.
Chair Shepherd asked how large Mountain View’s population was.
Ms. Antel reported the number of animals served was 1,000.
Ms. Cameron noted the Fiscal Year 2011 payment indicated approximately
1,000 animals for Mountain View, 1,760 for Palo Alto, 393 for Los Altos, and
150 for Los Altos Hills.
Chair Shepherd did not understand why there would be a change in
response time if one Animal Control Officer was patrolling a city
approximately the same size as Palo Alto. She asked whether there would
be a reduction in personnel or contraction of services if the City continued to
provide Animal Services, or was this the way Animal Services needed to be
staffed.
Ms. Antel reported Animal Services Staff had increased by only 0.5 FTE since
adding services to member communities. Animal Services Staff was having
difficulty determining how to decrease services when they expanded services
with the same amount of Staff. The level of service would be different due
to having only one Animal Control Officer (rather than two) in the field to
respond to calls from all member cities.
Chair Shepherd noted the Budget included 4.5 FTE for Animal Control
Officers, and Option 2 would decrease it by 2 FTE. She asked what their
duties were.
Ms. Antel reported one Animal Control Officer was dedicated to the Shelter
and three were in the field.
Ms. Stadler stated regular services were provided from 7:00 a.m. until 5:00
p.m., and on-call services from 5:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. the following
morning. Animal Control Officers often worked regular duty, were on-call
over night, and returned to regular duty the following day. A kennel person
MINUTES
Page 13 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
was on duty five days a week, but the kennels had to be covered seven days
a week. There were days when two officers were not on duty because of
time off.
Council Member Burt asked if Staff knew how long it would take SVACA to
accomplish a build out.
Ms. Antel indicated SVACA did not have an issue with taking cities
immediately, because they had days with high volume of animals and days
with low volume.
Council Member Burt inquired if the spay and neuter clinic was recovering
only 61 percent of cost, yet was charging market rate.
Ms. Antel said the nature of low-cost spays and neuter was to provide a
service at a lower rate to encourage compliance with spay and neuter. It
was a way of doing business that allowed residents to obtain services they
could not afford in the private market.
Council Member Burt inquired if it would be correct to say the City had 61
percent cost recovery, and was at market rate with other providers who also
were not at full cost recovery.
Ms. Antel stated other providers who provided a similar low-cost or
subsidized service.
Mr. Keene suggested cost recovery had to do with volume and productivity
and not just pricing. An ability to accelerate work with the same base cost
would shrink costs.
Council Member Burt asked if the various scenarios included retaining
staffing levels as City employees, with the exception of one scenario that
called for a contract veterinarian.
Senior Management Analyst Ian Hagerman stated under Option 3, the City
would contract vet and veterinary technician services. That created a
number of issues that had to be considered. The Shelter had a mandatory
obligation from State law to keep an injured animal alive for six days to give
the owner a chance to claim it. If a vet was not providing services at the
Shelter, then the animal would be taken to a private vet or an animal
hospital, and the City would incur charges for that. He noted a fine line
MINUTES
Page 14 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
between eliminating that service in-house and the increased cost that would
come with it. The City currently charged $55 to neuter and $80 to spay
cats, $85 to $195 to neuter dogs depending on weight, and $100 to $215 to
spay dogs depending on weight. Those fees at a private vet in Palo Alto
ranged from $350 to $700 for a comparable service.
Council Member Burt inquired if contracting veterinarian services under
Option 3 was off-site.
Mr. Hagerman indicated it would be a private vet. A contract vet could be
brought in for spay and neuter services. Emergency care would happen off-
site at a private vet or an animal hospital.
Council Member Burt asked how many of the alternative service provision
scenarios used non-government employees for a variety of services, and
how many were partially or wholly staffed by private non-profit employees.
He asked if there was $500,000 budgeted to subsidize services and if Animal
Services were outsourced to SVACA, was there a scenario to subsidize
services in Palo Alto for a comparable amount.
Ms. Antel reported employees at the Animal Shelter were City employees,
employees of SVACA were part of the Joint Powers Authority, and employees
of the Silicon Valley and Palo Alto Humane Societies were employees of the
Humane Societies. Staff reviewed different scenarios, but could not find a
cost recovery scenario that provided the same level of service without
incurring more costs. If the level of service remained the same, costs
increased. If costs were reduced, then the service level decreased or more
costs were at risk
Council Member Burt asked if the Silicon Valley Humane Society received
subsidies from participating cities.
Ms. Stump stated Council Members needed to be sensitive to the fact that
whether a given person providing services to the public on the City's behalf
was an employee or a contractor was not something the City unilaterally
decided. That was a function of federal law.
Council Member Burt wanted to consider contracting the City's facility to an
agency such as the Humane Society. If Silicon Valley was supporting
themselves, then the budgeted amount of $500,000 could be sued to
provide services within Palo Alto. That could be a hybrid model that certain
MINUTES
Page 15 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
functions were City employees and certain functions were Humane Society
employees.
Ms. Antel indicated an RFP could include the option to provide services at the
City's facility if it was available. Staff would not have an answer on the
viability of such a program until they issued an RFP.
Council Member Burt acknowledged the long-term issue of the facility
condition and the capital costs associated with that. He asked if it was
public information that Mountain View was carrying dollars in its capital plan
to contribute to the capital upgrade of Palo Alto's facility.
Mr. Perez reported the City Manager prior to Mr. Keene had discussed with
surrounding cities the possibility of sharing the cost of a new facility, given
the interest in relocating it. Staff had received a verbal commitment that
Mountain View would be interested in doing that.
Leonor Delgado noted the outpouring of support for not outsourcing Animal
Services and the Animal Shelter at the previous P&SC meeting, and the
P&SC vote in favor of appointing a task force to study the issue and present
concrete measures. He asked the FC to recognize that outsourcing was not
a viable option. Outsourcing to SVACA would create unacceptable time lags
for Animal Control to remove dead animals and intervene in dangerous
situations such as dogs running loose. The kind of service that Palo Alto
Residents had received in the past through Animal Services would be lost.
Outsourcing would also result in no possibility for surrender of found and
owned pets. SVACA would accept animals for a fee of $150 animals;
however, unemployed pet owners could not afford to pay to surrender their
pets. The homeless pet population on the street could conceivably grow by
leaps and bounds. Removal of the low cost spay and neuter clinic along with
all of Animal Services would result in even more homeless animals.
Carole Hyde represented the Palo Alto Humane Society. They were grateful
to P&SC and City Staff for the recommendation of deficit reductions with
benchmarks in the Budget of Animal Services. The Humane Society
supported the proposal for the creation of a task force to determine options
for the best provision of Animal Services for the community and the
development of a vision for the future. They would be pleased to serve on
the task force and to work with the City to support the work of Animal
Services. She would be pleased to answer questions on the Humane
Society's proposal. A few things had not been commented on. The goal was
to keep the Shelter open and Animal Services localized. To do otherwise
MINUTES
Page 16 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
would be a radical departure from 60 years of a policy of Safe Communities.
She wanted to include the moral imperative to care for animals.
Council Member Burt asked Ms. Hyde to comment on his earlier question
regarding subsidies to the Humane Society in Silicon Valley.
Ms. Hyde noted the Silicon Valley Humane Society was separate from the
Palo Alto Humane Society.
Council Member Burt assumed there was an affiliation.
Ms. Hyde indicated all Humane Societies were separate. They were oriented
to jurisdiction; however, the Palo Alto Humane Society served regionally and
was purely non-profit.
Council Member Burt asked if she knew how Silicon Valley was supported.
Ms. Hyde believed they had a contract with Sunnyvale; otherwise, they were
a non-profit organization.
Carol Schumacher, one of the owners of the Mid-Peninsula Animal Hospital,
believed she had been accepted to participate on the task force. The animal
hospital had received a letter from Animal Services requesting the names
and addresses of clients who received rabies vaccines, and they would be
happy to comply. She volunteered to answer economic questions regarding
spay and neuter costs. She was also interested in disaster planning, and
stated both federal and state laws required all jurisdictions to include
animals in disaster plans.
Vice Mayor Scharff was not aware a task force had been created, and asked
who notified Ms. Schumacher she had been chosen for the task force.
Ms. Schumacher indicated she had not been notified officially.
Mary Donoghue was present when Mountain View voted on the Animal
Services issue. Mountain View had to purchase a van for SVACA's use and
subsidize the construction of animal space, in addition to the annual fee.
She felt there must be a reduction in costs associated with the reduced
number of animals surrendered to the Shelter. She had been with the
Stanford Cat Network for 20 years, and had seen the results of dumped
animals. She suggested there was a market for additional services the
Shelter could provide, such as limited, low-cost veterinary care. Residents
might be willing to license their pets to save the Shelter. Perhaps Stanford
MINUTES
Page 17 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
could support Palo Alto rather than contracting with Crane. She also
suggested soliciting corporate donations.
Reine Flexer indicated the Silicon Valley Humane Society received many
grants, including one grant of $1 million. She felt SVACA was not ready to
offer a spay and neuter clinic or to place animals. Mountain View would
receive less services while saving only $40,000 per year. She preferred
services be reduced rather than outsourced, and stated services could be
reinstituted when the Budget situation was better. SVACA had not pr ovided
a definitive estimate, and was not a benefit to the community. She trapped
feral cats to have them spayed and neutered, and indicated there were
many feral cats in the Mountain View area.
Christina Peck, resident of Mountain View, co-founded the Stanford Cat
Network to help abandoned cats on campus. She had also founded a local
group to help community cats. It was premature for the Committee to vote
on an option for Animal Services. She urged the Committee to accept the
recommendation of P&SC to increase revenue by $100,000 and reduce
expenditures by $200,000. There were a great many variations of models.
She had utilized the spay and neuter clinic for over 3,000 cats in the past 20
years. The spay and neuter clinic would not be part of the co ntract with
SVACA as it was not a mandated service. SVACA had spay and neuter
services one day per week for shelter animals, another spay and neuter day
for residents' animals, and a third day for non-residents' animals. That did
not compare with the spay and neuter clinic at Palo Alto Animal Services.
She was concerned that SVACA would not be able to increase staffing.
Scottie Zimmerman wanted to discuss other shelters. He compared
websites of other animal services to the Palo Alto website. He noted o ther
websites allowed online donations and had sponsors. He assumed there was
income involved with sponsors. The Humane Society of Silicon Valley served
only Sunnyvale. He noted there was only one kitten in the Shelter, and
there had not been a large kitten population at the Shelter in years. The
spay and neuter clinic was beneficial to the community.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the Humane Society proposal was that the spay
and neuter clinic could increase revenue by $225,000 if Staff worked harder.
Ms. Hyde believed that point would go unnoticed, until Mr. Keene
commented on it. The proposal pointed to several unrealized efficiencies in
services. The Palo Alto Humane Society spent as much as $150,000 on it’s
spay and neuter underwriting program, while only $30,000 or $40,000 was
redeemed at Palo Alto Animal Services. The remainder went to low -cost
clinics in the East Bay, because the Palo Alto clinic did not accommodate the
MINUTES
Page 18 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
kinds of animals the Humane Society had. She believed if those animals
were admitted, revenue would expand greatly.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked what she suggested the vet do to capture that
revenue.
Ms. Hyde recommended the vet spay and neuter all day, until 4:00 p.m.
rather than stopping at noon, and all kinds of animals (primarily feral cats)
be admitted into Animal Services.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired if the vet remained until noon.
Ms. Hyde understood from various sources the vet had a short surgical day.
Ms. Stadler reported surgery began between 8:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and
ended when all animals had been through surgery, normally around 1:00
p.m. People began picking up their pets at 2:00 p.m. Two vet technicians
began work at 6:00 a.m. and departed at 3:30 p.m. The vet arrived
between 8:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and departed at 6:00 p.m. or 6:30 p.m.
Staff needed time to prepare for the following surgery day and to allow pets
to wake up from surgery.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired if they were City employees.
Ms. Stadler answered yes.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if they were full-time employees and if they were
working the full amount of hours.
Ms. Stadler responded yes. They worked a 9/80 schedule.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked Ms. Hyde to explain the proposal further.
Ms. Hyde was simply recalling the prior production and services of the clinic.
That was the basis for the proposed revenue from the spay and neuter clinic.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if Staff was not working.
Ms. Hyde would not comment on that aspect.
Council Member Price asked if donations and grants were possible for the
City.
MINUTES
Page 19 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
Ms. Hyde answered certainly. The purpose of a task force would be to
review the options and provide a report. Municipal shelters usually operated
at a deficit; therefore, the City would have to subsidize it. There were
various models for Animal Services, and a task force should be allowed to
review that in detail.
Council Member Price inquired about examples of service delivery models
that included partnerships.
Ms. Hyde suggested Silicon Valley Humane Society, San Jose Animal C are
Center, and Peninsula Humane Society were examples.
Council Member Price inquired if there were foundations that supported
these kinds of activities.
Ms. Hyde stated there were brick and mortar foundations for remodeling the
facility, spay and neuter grants were available and private donors believed in
the Humane Society mission.
Council Member Price asked if services overlapped between Animal Services
and the Humane Society.
Ms. Hyde reported the overlap could be humane education, and the Humane
Society often partnered with Animal Services in community programs. The
Humane Society's spay and neuter work was an underwriting program.
They had a program to provide veterinary assistance to people who could
not afford the bills.
Council Member Price inquired how a task force would affect Staff resources
and time. She noted there was a great deal of public interest in a task force.
Mr. Keene stated the P&SC recommended a task force be appointed by the
City Manager to have community members work with Staff. No
appointments to a task force had been made, because it was only a
recommendation. If the goal was to have a transition plan and strategy in
place by November 1, 2012, that was a short time and Staff could not work
on that until the Budget was finalized. He preferred some other language
than task force, as it was laden with expectations of large size and many
meeting. The impact would be large for Staff at this point, because of
existing initiatives and Committee meetings. Collaboration with and input
from stakeholders was necessary for generating ideas and sharing research.
He proposed something less formal than a task force. This was not the
same as the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission.
MINUTES
Page 20 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
Council Member Price felt a real issue was Staff's workload. She inquired
which service option would continue if a task force were appointed with a
defined scope and a stated schedule.
Mr. Keene said that was dependent on the gap that needed to be closed. He
recommended closing the full gap of $500,000. The number of animals
being served would be reduced by one-third with the departure of Mountain
View, and there should be a commensurate reduction in costs. The
assumption needed to be when the fiscal year began July 1, 2012; Animal
Services would remain in status quo until November 1, 2012. However, to
the extent Staff could identify revenue changes and expenditure reductions,
those would be implemented as quickly as possible to increase cost savings.
Council Member Price asked if the numbers reflected the loss of Mountain
View costs and revenue.
Ms. Antel reported the numbers had been adjusted for the one-third of the
year Mountain View was a member of the agreement.
Council Member Price inquired if the Budget assumed the reduction in
number of clients as well.
Ms. Antel stated the detail in the report provided to P&SC backed out the
revenues.
Council Member Price asked if a revised service model assumed fewer
clients.
Mr. Keene answered yes. For the most part, the options in the Staff Report
were designed to accommodate the reduction in service demand from the
loss of Mountain View. Those cuts generated the $366,000 amount. That
did not mean there would not be service impacts on Palo Alto.
Council Member Burt noted the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget included subsidy
revenue from member cities and retail revenue from individual services. He
asked if the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget factored in loss of retail revenue as well
as the subsidy.
Ms. Antel stated it was difficult to reduce the operational costs of the Shelter
by one-third, because Animal Control Services did not line up in terms of the
total cost of revenues.
MINUTES
Page 21 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
Council Member Burt noted item 7 on the user fee study summary sheet was
veterinary services other than spay and neuter, and inquired what kind of
services were these and why was cost recovery so low.
Ms. Antel reported those veterinary services covered injured animals brought
to the clinic. Those costs were not recovered if the animal was not claimed
by its owner.
Ms. Stadler stated outgoing costs were recovered if someone redeemed an
injured pet. Unfortunately, the cost recovery was low for those situations.
Mr. Keene noted 61 percent of costs were recovered for spay and neuter, yet
76 percent of animals spayed and neutered were outside the member cities.
Palo Alto citizens were subsidizing a service to people outside of Palo Alto
and the member cities. That raised important policy questions of who
decided where taxpayer money was spent.
Council Member Burt felt there were far too many unanswered questions
concerning SVACA's policies on surrender, spay and neuter, and capacity.
He wanted specific statements from SVACA on those issues and to have a
site visit. He stated a decision would not be made tonight, yet there was not
much time to reach a good decision. Stakeholders had emerged during the
process and would be easy to identify. Perhaps the SVACA model
adequately addressed emergency response plans, but it was unclear how
that need was fully met by SVACA. He wanted to understand if there were
hybrid models that could leverage non-profit services being provided for
some portion of current services. The FC could not achieve budgetary
savings with these questions pending, yet it needed to move forward on the
Budget. He asked Staff what they were comfortable with in terms of how to
proceed on the Budget element given the discussions.
Mr. Keene suggested the FC direct Staff to prepare a Budget that maintained
Animal Services in-house, but closed the $500,000 gap through a
combination of revenue and expenditure changes in this fiscal year. That
Budget would not be ready next week, but Staff could have a good idea of
the components by Wrap-up. It would be a mistake to ignore the reality of a
$500,000 gap, and the FC should direct Staff to close the gap as part of this
Budget.
Council Member Burt said this Item would be a placeholder budgetary item.
MOTION: Council Member Burt moved seconded by Vice Mayor Scharff that
we have $500,000 dollar reduction in deficit for Animal Services for Fiscal
Year 2013, the service would remain in Palo Alto for Fiscal Year 2013, and
MINUTES
Page 22 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
City Manager, upon engaging with stakeholders on alternative approaches,
will include recommended means to achieve those objectives subsequent to
this Committee meeting.
Mr. Keene stated Staff could have a better sense of the risks by the time the
Budget was adopted; however, practically it would be after adoption of the
Budget. Engaging with the community and research would require time.
Council Member Burt wanted to include within the Motion that this was
$500,000 in this cost area or something approaching that with
commensurate savings elsewhere in the Budget.
Mr. Keene saw that as a default issue. It was important to maintain
pressure to accommodate the costs. The Humane Society had noted
opportunities for rethinking services and programs.
Council Member Burt removed the modification from the Motion. If
something was presented that was a variation, the FC would consider it at
that time.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked whether imposing fees was the remaining area to
consider reaching the $500,000 amount from the $372,000 savings of
Option 2.
Mr. Keene agreed. Staff wanted to understand the implications of these
changes in service.
Council Member Burt indicated it was also revenue and volume potential.
Vice Mayor Scharff expressed concern with eliminating the Volunteer
Coordinator position. If Animal Services continued in Palo Alto, volunteers
were worthwhile. He supported the motion, and felt the FC had to close the
$500,000 gap.
Chair Shepherd asked if the real costs for running this operation was $1.7
million.
Mr. Keene indicated the costs were in the range of $1.7 million to $1.9
million.
Chair Shepherd inquired if the $366,000 in net savings for Option2 was
coming off the $1.7 million.
Mr. Perez answered yes.
MINUTES
Page 23 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
Chair Shepherd said the City would be sharing in this reduction of personnel
with partner cities. She wanted to make clear this was not all Palo Alto's
savings.
Mr. Keene indicated it was both in net and gross. The City would have
conversations with its partners about that.
Chair Shepherd asked if Los Altos and Los Altos Hills were interested in
moving to SVACA or were they interested in reducing services to be
competitive with SVACA.
Mr. Keene reported they had been happy with the relationship, and they
wanted to stay with Palo Alto. Their flexibility, given their scale, was limited.
A significant change in their contribution amounts could drive them to an
alternative.
Chair Shepherd stated this was a lot of employees for the City to carry. A
public-private partnership and keeping services local would be ideal. She
noticed that net costs had been $700,000 and $500,000 was already
booked, so they were trying to craft out $200,000. She indicated a friends
group was needed for Animal Services.
Council Member Price supported the motion. Her biggest concern was long-
term implications of changes in service. She was also concerned about
Staff's capacity to manage a stakeholders group. She assumed Staff would
indicate what they could not do to achieve this.
Vice Mayor Scharff indicated the stakeholder group should not require a
large amount of time, and encouraged limiting the groups to a small number
of members with few meetings.
Mr. Keene suggested it was easy to be effective and efficient by design. The
Council had directed Staff to work on several other projects simultaneously,
and a small group of Staff supported these policy analyses and citizen
interfaces.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
Mr. Perez noted Staff had presented a recap of the Police Budget earlier.
Penny Ellson was speaking as an individual, because the City School Traffic
Safety Committee had not reviewed the Budget or taken a formal position.
The City had one Supervisor and seven Officers on the Traffic Team in
MINUTES
Page 24 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
approximately 2000. The Traffic Team was currently budgeted for four
members, which was the bare minimum for an effective team. She
recognized there was a problem in organizing the Department to work with
the limited number of bodies. She encouraged the FC not to eliminate the
Traffic Team. Eliminating the Traffic Team would remove the enforcement
arm of the Safe Routes to School Partnership. The Traffic Team's
involvement in education programs had been important in the evolution of
good programs. The Traffic Team interacted with children differently than
Patrol Officers, because they understood the development differences of
children. They approached children with the goal of educating them to be
safer road users.
Council Member Burt inquired for the percentage of children who biked and
walked to school.
Ms. Ellson reported approximately 46 percent of elementary students used
foot-powered modes of transportation, 54 percent used alternative modes of
transportation. Bicycling counts had increased significantly at the secondary
schools. It was important to understand they were laying the groundwork in
elementary school for actions in secondary school. Secondary schools had
higher percentages of students bicycling, and it was impossible to count the
students who walked.
Council Member Burt asked for an explanation of the use of the Traffic Team
and volunteers.
Ms. Ellson indicated people thought the solution to a traffic problem on a
school commute route required police involvement. A dedicated Traffic
Team was a draw for volunteers; however, once volunteers understood the
program, they understood it was a cooperative problem solving process.
Council Member Burt asked for an explanation of her perspective of having
dedicated police personnel for coordination.
Ms. Ellson explained the Traffic Team had a seat on the City School Traffic
Safety Committee. The Traffic Team provided a great deal of information to
the Committee about education programs and traffic problems. The Traffic
Team shared information from Committee meetings. That kind of
cooperation has resulted in progress.
Council Member Price wanted to hear her perspective regarding the
importance of the Traffic Team as it supported efforts to find funding for
Safe Routes to School.
MINUTES
Page 25 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
Ms. Ellson reported the fact that there was a comprehensive Safe Routes to
School Program helped them receive the VERBS grant. She thought there
would be opportunities to investigate grant dollars to support the
enforcement arm in some way.
Council Member Price asked for a history of the Traffic Safety Team, current
staffing, and how redeployment would affect the Team and safety, education
and enforcement issues.
Captain Ron Watson indicated in 1995 there were a sergeant and five
officers on the Team. In 1996 the City increased the Team to one sergeant
and six officers. In 2000, another officer was added. In 2004, three
members of the Traffic Team were eliminated. Two years ago, one more
position was eliminated. Today there were one sergeant and three officers.
There were 92 allocated sworn positions, 14 vacancies, 3 people on
disability, and 1 person in the academy within the Department. Those 18
positions represented approximately 20 percent of the Department. It was
not unusual for the Department to have ten Staff not on the street at any
given time. The real impact was losing 13 positions within the last ten
months. The normal hiring process and ability to find applicants had not
kept up with that. July 1, 2012, the Department would probably consolidate
the two remaining Traffic Team members into Patrol Operations. Those two
positions would be assigned to regular patrol teams on day shift, and would
have a specific assignment of continuing traffic enforcement under the
supervision of a patrol sergeant. Their primary mission will continue to be
prevention of traffic accidents, school commute safety, general traffic
enforcement, and representation on the City School Traffic Safety
Committee. Other officers on dayshift would have to assume a greater role
in terms of traffic safety efforts at the school and increased traffic
enforcement. Two Traffic Team members were injured for most of the year,
so having only two officers would not be that much different. The
Department did not have the numbers to place a supervisor and four officers
on that Team. He hoped the Department could gain some Staff and then
bolster traffic as well as other divisions.
Council Member Price inquired if there was a method to accelerate
recruitment.
Mr. Watson stated recruitment was a priority. He had been meeting
regularly with personnel and training to ensure they had the necessary
resources to hire employees. The first problem was finding qualified
applicants; 300 applicants had been reduced to six being considered for
employment. The time from application to working solo on the street was
approximately 16 months.
MINUTES
Page 26 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
Vice Mayor Scharff asked how many vacancies the Department had last
year.
Mr. Watson noted 13 Staff were lost in the last ten months, and one had
been hired. The Department was short 11 in December and had lost three
since then. They were considering shift change this year after losing 13
Staff from shift change last year. It was hard to do the same thing the same
way.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired if the proposal was to freeze six positions and
hire another eight positions.
Mr. Watson stated it was a freeze of seven, and they could hire seven today.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the Traffic Team was operating independently or
in the model he mentioned.
Mr. Watson reported it was operating this year as a Traffic Team with the
caveat that it was half a Traffic Team due to injuries.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked why eliminating six positions and retaining the
Traffic Team was not feasible.
Mr. Watson stated if he had those other six positions, he could do that. The
reality was new hires would attend the academy in July 2012, and they
would be solo officers at this time in 2013. The Department would not have
that capability at the beginning of the Budget Year or the school year. As
officers were hired, they could reinstate a Traffic Team.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked Ms. Ellson if her concern was losing the Traffic
Team permanently.
Ms. Ellson indicated one of her concerns of eliminating the dedicated Traffic
Team was the necessity to rebuild a team if it was reinstated.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired if there could be a dedicated Traffic Team if six
or seven Staff were hired.
Mr. Watson said if he could have seven officers who could work solo
tomorrow, he could do that.
MINUTES
Page 27 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
Vice Mayor Scharff suggested there was no choice but to do something
between now and the time those officers could be trained. He was
concerned about losing the knowledge and structure of the Traffic Team.
Ms. Ellson indicated when the Department reached full staffing; she did not
want to fight to rebuild the Traffic Team. She understood temporary
reorganization was necessary at the current time. She was uncomfortable
giving up the current Team because it worked very well.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if Staff agreed with continuing the Traffic Team
when six or seven Staff were hired.
Ms. Antel reported Staff was not recommending elimination of those
positions, because they were needed. The issue was as ranks decrea sed,
overtime increased, which was the reason for filling those vacancies.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired if Staff wanted to fill vacancies beyond seven
positions by freezing six positions.
Ms. Antel stated the seven or eight positions provided enough staffing in the
regular patrol schedule to allow a focus on traffic.
Vice Mayor Scharff indicated the following year's Budget would include these
positions.
Mr. Keene stated Staff was not ready to eliminate these positions. When the
proposal was presented, Staff was focused on freezing them as a cost
savings, and it gave Staff the opportunity to determine the impacts and
allowed the Department to rethink providing services without those
positions. If the Department was fully staffed except for these six or s even
positions in the following year, it was possible to make it all work and save
money.
Vice Mayor Scharff was confused as to what was being asked of the
Committee. From a practical point of view, there were 13 vacancies, yet
Staff was proposing not hiring six positions that would not be hired anyway.
The issue was, after hiring those people, keeping the Traffic Team intact
without losing the institutional knowledge and structure.
Mr. Watson suggested he was looking at two different issues. Normally the
Department would fight to prevent freezing of positions. It made sense to
freeze those positions that would not immediately impact the Department.
Once all authorized hires had been completed, then they could discuss
whether or not to release freezes. The Department had Staff filling two
MINUTES
Page 28 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
positions, and would make adjustments. Freezing the positions was a
budget situation that the Department could not object to.
Mr. Keene explained freezing a position meant it would be excluded from the
Budget, whereas a vacancy was a funded position. Staff was not going to fill
these positions this year and would reduce the Budget. If Staff did not do
that, they would have to cut a service from another part of the City to keep
a Budget appropriation for an expenditure Staff could not make. He did not
care about the programatic changes; the Chief would have to determine the
best deployment of those Staff.
Vice Mayor Scharff did not understand the purpose of freezing positions, and
asked how it worked.
Mr. Keene explained when Staff budgeted money for a Department, the
Department was authorized to spend it. Whether or not the Department
spent the money was a different issue. When Staff froze positions, they
were unauthorizing the Department to spend funds, and actually were giving
the funds to another Department to spend. In that case, Staff was ensuring
another service area was not cut. If these were the only vacancies and they
were frozen this year, then Staff would be in a position to discuss next year
the possibility of returning them to the Budget or permanently cutting them.
He believed freezing rather than eliminating the positions was the advisable
course.
Council Member Burt inquired whether a surplus was created at the end of
the year by allocating funds in the Budget but not spending them. He noted
some years had resulted in a surplus, and other years had unexpected
expenses resulting in deficits. He asked if Staff anticipated a portion of
anticipated savings would move to overtime because of these vacancies.
Mr. Watson stated the following year would not be any different than most
years. The Department always carried a certain number of vacancies, and
they offset the overtime beyond the normal overtime budget. It was
traditional that salary savings offset additional overtime. Because the
vacancies would not be filled prior to July 1, 2012, the Department would
begin accruing salary savings to offset overtime. Overtime had increased
because of the 14 vacant positions, but still in the range to be o ffset by
vacancies.
Council Member Burt indicated there were two potential categories of
vacancies that could impact overtime: the allocated positions that may not
be filled, and the frozen positions. He inquired if the Department would
have overtime that filled in for the frozen positions.
MINUTES
Page 29 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
Mr. Watson believed the vacancies beyond the frozen positions would cover
overtime.
Council Member Burt asked if the Department would incur additional
overtime to backfill the frozen spots.
Mr. Watson replied no.
Council Member Burt inquired if the two Traffic Team member who were out
due to injuries were scheduled to return.
Mr. Watson reported one was back and one remained out.
Council Member Burt asked if there were three qualified people for that area.
Mr. Watson stated there were two officers and a supervisor.
Council Member Burt wanted a process to confirm the Department was
staying on track in supporting those functions. He suggested Staff and
stakeholders report in the fall to make policy decisions if adjustments were
needed. At a policy level, the City had a commitment to support this
function.
Mr. Watson agreed and indicated Ms. Ellson would notify them if the
program was working.
Council Member Burt noted the dedication of the officers in this group to
serving those needs.
Chair Shepherd was surprised to see the Budget being balanced with police
officers. She understood the reconfiguration with fire fighters, but wanted a
better explanation for the redeployment of police officers. She felt the
increase in students biking and walking was beneficial and needed to be
protected. This was a way to keep kids safe, and that was important to her
as well. She asked whether the resource officer was still in the schools.
Mr. Watson indicated there was one position and it was staffed.
Chair Shepherd asked if the City controlled the amount of fines for drivers in
school zones during the commute.
Mr. Watson stated almost all tickets for moving violations tended to be $150
to $200 and, with court fines, totaled $400 to $500. He did not believe
MINUTES
Page 30 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
there were enhanced fees for school zones; however, officers were more
likely to write a ticket in a school zone.
Chair Shepherd asked if those charges were set by the County.
Mr. Keene believed those were set by the State. The Department had
complete discretion as to issuing a warning or a ticket.
MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Scharff
that Staff’s recommendation with the additional language that the Police
Department to Safe Routes to School to continue the longstanding policy of
the City and City Council and that we want a report back in the mid-fall of
implementation of the staffing method in the traffic.
Vice Mayor Scharff believed the Safe Routes to School and its infrastructure
needed to be protected.
Council Member Price reiterated the importance of filling those positions, and
noted the impacts of additional responsibilities and overtime.
Chair Shepherd wanted to hear how the redeployment of officers was being
managed and made contemporary. She wanted to ensure the community
was being taken care of while the Department was being right sized and
redeployed.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
Mr. Keene stated this was a sea change in government, and a symptom of
his discussions with Council regarding degree of change, recruitment issues
and competition. In this particular case, the City had Penny Ellson watching,
but there were other areas without a watch dog or advocate. There were
other gaps in the City that the Council was not aware of or that were moving
around. He thought the next several years would have this kind of flux, a
radical departure of people. The baby-boom generation and State benefits
had enabled that. The City would have holes in the organization from time
to time, and it could have a dramatic impact on the City. This was a
reflection of the dynamic.
3. Fire Budget
Sr. Financial Analyst Christine Paras reported Citywide changes totaled
$426,491, and personnel benefit costs increased by $166,000. Details for
this could be found on page 204 of the Proposed Operating Budget. There
MINUTES
Page 31 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
had been an increase of $900,000 because of retiree medical costs, most of
which were offset by International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF)
concessions achieved in the fall of 2011. Allocated charges increased by
$300,000, most of which was due to the Information Technology (IT)
allocation charge. The City received a credit in billing that offset the
reimbursement from Stanford for fire contract services. The ambulance fee
increased by $300,000, comprised of a $186,000 increase for emergency
medical services response and $135,000 to align the Budget with actual
trends. There was an increase of $400,000 for Development Center
revenue. Staff estimated municipal fee increases of $100,000. Revenue
clean-up items decreased by $40,000. The Department proposed to reduce
its temporary Staff by 1.48 Full-Time Equivalents (FTE), to increase regular
positions by 3.5 FTEs, and to eliminate 9 FTEs related to the closure of the
Stanford National Accelerator Laboratory (SLAC) Fire Station. Offsetting
that, the Department proposed an increased service level for emergency
response. In line with Fire Study recommendations, the Department
proposed adding 0.3 FTE and 1 FTE Fire Inspector, and reallocating 2.5 FTE
from Police for administrative oversight and assistance. The Department
proposed a one-time freeze of 6 FTEs related to proposed flexible staffing.
Also included in the salary changes was a reduction of overtime of $600,000,
related to adding 6 FTEs in emergency response and staffing that with actual
FTEs rather than through overtime as had occurred in the past. The
proposed closure of Station 7 was initiated by Stanford, and the proposal
was to eliminate nine Staff and some supply and material costs. The net
cost of closing the station after the Stanford reimbursement revenue offset
of 30.3 percent was a savings of $900,000. The second proposal was to
freeze 6 FTEs in flexible staffing as a result of revised minimum staffing
requirements achieved in concessions with IAFF. The Department proposed
to reduce overtime by $200,000. The expense increase for the increased
level of emergency response service was $500,000. This proposal would
double the response availability of Medic 2 with regular employees rather
than overtime, which had been done in the past. The net cost, including
revenue that Staff anticipated from increased availability, was $200,000,
which was offset by the Stanford reimbursement. The net cost of this
increased level of service was $241,000. She noted Staff achieved salary
and benefit concessions with IAFF totaling $1.57 million. The Department
completed the Fire Utilization study, and recommended re-classing an EMS
(Emergency Medical Service) Coordinator to an EMS Chief and adding an
EMS Data Specialist and a Geographic Information System (GIS) Specialist.
There was an $87,000 increase for other changes.
Assistant City Manager Pamela Antel added there were a number of changes
yielding a tremendous amount of savings. Staff had placed resources in
MINUTES
Page 32 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
areas where they were needed, which was a benefit of not only the Fire and
Resources Utilization Study, but also the work by the Fire Command Staff to
rethink delivery of services. The total savings was approximately $2.3
million.
Council Member Price inquired about the implications of freezing the position
of Program Assistant in the Office of Emergency Services (OES).
Ms. Antel reported the plan was to hire an OES Director, then a Program
Coordinator and lastly a Program Assistant. Staff wanted to see the
outcome of the OES Coordinator and the work being performed.
Council Member Price asked for a dollar amount for the Stanford
reimbursement reduction of 30.3 percent.
Ms. Antel explained Stanford had agreed to reimburse the City 30.3 percent
of the total cost of fire services. With the closure of Station 7, the City
agreed to review the reimbursement rate based on the new level of service.
A Fire Study consultant was working to determine the appropriate
reimbursement rate. Not knowing an exact number, Staff placed a number
in the Budget to represent that amount, and hoped to have a reconciliation
in the next 60 days.
Mr. Keene reported the SLAC cut was approximately $1.8 million, so 30
percent of that would be the offset amount.
Council Member Price inquired if the City was in the process of renegotiating
the terms of the agreement and the percentage.
Ms. Antel responded correct.
Council Member Price inquired whether the methodology was unique to this
area.
Ms. Antel indicated Staff had met with Stanford and the consultant, and they
would make a series of recommendations. The percentage would be based
on quantifiable items such as calls for service, value of the property being
served, specialized equipment and a variety of other things. That report
would be provided to the Council when it became available.
MINUTES
Page 33 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
Council Member Price asked what the general term of that type of
agreement was.
Assistant Director of Administrative Services, David Ramberg stated the
agreement was renewed in 2006 and expired in 2056.
Administrative Services Director Lalo Perez stated pending negotiations
would potentially impact the Budget at some point.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired whether Stanford asked to reopen negotiations
because of the closure of Station 7.
Ms. Antel replied yes. The City charged Stanford 30.3 percent, and Stanford
split that allocation between its general budget and SLAC Department of
Education (DOE). The City did not participate in determining the allocation
of costs to DOE.
Vice Mayor Scharff stated Stanford now had to pay all of it from its general
budget.
Ms. Antel explained the amount Stanford allocated to Station 7 was greater
than the amount the City allocated for operational costs for Station 7.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired if the agreement had a renegotiation clause.
Ms. Antel responded there was a triggering mechanism.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked what happened if an agreement was not reached.
Ms. Antel explained much of the agreement was difficult to track, because
there was not an exact method for determining the origination of the 30.3
percent. The City and Stanford had agreed to renegotiate the agreement.
Mr. Ramberg corrected the agreement expiration date from 2056 to 2026.
The agreement began in 1976 and expired in 2026; the City renewed it with
the same term in 2006.
Fred Balin of the College Terrace Residents Association stated he expected a
Staff Report prior to the meeting; however, he learned the Proposed Budget
stood in its place. He read note 2 on page 201 . He had to infer and confirm
that the vehicle would be Engine Company 2 at the Hanover Street Station
MINUTES
Page 34 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
alone. Taking Engine Company 2 out of service would increase response
times within the district. If the plan was approved, he expected the impact
to be felt quickly; because of the additional daytime summer staffing that
occurred at Station 8 in the Foothills. The College Terrace Residents
Association had researched the proposal and related studies, communicated
with the Fire Chief and Department personnel, and kept neighbors apprised.
They were pleased to learn that paramedic staffing at Station 2 was
proposed to return to 24/7 dedicated staffing. They were concerned about a
brown-out of Engine 2. They understood it was a one -year trial, but it also
stood within the context of the consultant's recommendation to merge
Stations 2 and 5 into a new location near Foothill and Arastradero. He
stated there would be construction of approximately 185 units of
predominantly multi-family housing in Research Park adjacent to College
Terrace after the deadline of December 2013 for submittal of building plans.
He trusted the City would carefully study the matter of any degradation in
engine company response and how to equitably apportion any required
service cuts within the community.
Brent Barker of the College Terrace Residents Association reported the
station on Hanover Street would be cannibalized if there were vacancies at
other stations. He indicated three people were needed on the truck and, if
one was removed, the engine would be out of service. He did not know the
specifics, but hoped the FC would not rush into a decision before
understanding the budgetary considerations as well as the risk imposed on
the community served by that particular station. Taking one station and
cannibalizing it for the others put an undue burden on that community. He
stated there was increased marginal risk of response time by not having an
engine available. He believed that risk should be dispersed more broadly
throughout the community, possibly by rotating it on a monthly basis.
Council Member Price asked Staff to respond to comments made by the
public. She asked if Staff had examined the concept he proposed.
Ms. Antel reported the Fire Department and Staff had studied the
recommendations in the Fire Utilization and Resources Study for more than a
year. She suggested an overview of flexible staffing, why it would work, and
its basis.
Deputy Fire Chief Geoffrey Blackshire stated there were several things to
consider when discussing the flexible staffing model. Engine 2 was selected
because the Hanover Fire Station was special for several reasons. First, the
location was centralized. The Fire Utilization and Resources Study showed
that Station 2's response time of 4:03 was faster than other stations. If
MINUTES
Page 35 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
Engine 2 was not in service, then Rescue 2 would respond to medical calls
and fire calls within that particular district. However, the rescue vehicle did
not have water, so there was a different level of service. Engine 2
responded to 19 different response areas, and had the least amount of calls
since Engine 7 had been out of service. With medical calls having a higher
volume of response, the rescue vehicle would pick up those calls if the
engine were out of service. The rescue vehicle alone ran slightly more than
1,000 calls in the prior year, with Engine 2 just below that at 1,000.
Because Engine 2 and Rescue 2 responded to approximately 275 calls
together, Rescue 2 would pick up approximately 1,800 calls total in a year.
Another consideration was mileage; by June that apparatus would have
200,000 miles on it. Engine 2 responded first to Stanford campus. He
indicated the Stanford side of the campus extended to College Terrace, and
Engine 2 was first in that district. By Fire guidelines, Fire Staff could
hypothetically respond on medical calls within a decent amount of time. The
rescue vehicle was not limited to that district alone, and responded to all
fires, structure responses, and vehicle accidents on Highways 101 and 280.
Because of this, it was not always located in that district to respond to
emergencies. If it was eliminated, there would only be a medical vehicle
and not an engine. Staff considered several things: the district, the
apparatus, and the level of calls. Based on information from the Utilization
Study, that was the rig selected for flexible staffing.
Ms. Antel asked him to comment on which engine could respond in place of
Engine 2.
Mr. Blackshire stated there was a response order for apparatus if an engine
was out of service. If the order was Engine 1, Engine 2, Engine 3 and
Engine 2 was out of service, then the order would be Engine 1, Engine 3 and
the next due engine. If Engine 2 were out of that order, then Fire Staff
would take the next closest apparatus to respond to that emergency. All of
these response zones were based on time trials performed approximately
ten years ago. Station 2 responded more than any other in the City,
because it was centrally located. That's why that ambulance was effective.
He explained the response area was large, because it extended from El
Camino to Greer and Sheridan, and to Skyline. If Engine 2 was eliminated,
the next due engine (depending on where it was located) could be Engine 3
on Embarcadero, Engine 5 on Arastradero or Engine 6. Those engines were
not in the immediate response time, because of the time trials. Fire Staff
would take the next engine in the response order and move it in.
Chair Shepherd asked if the FC needed to address the memo at places on
this Item.
MINUTES
Page 36 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
Mr. Perez stated it did not impact the Fire Department Budget.
Ms. Paras reported Staff proposed reallocating a couple of Fire positions from
the General Fund to Utilities and Public Works Enterprise. Staff had outlined
the FTE changes. For example, Staff wanted to move 0.08 FTE of Fire
Marshal to Utilities, which would provide net help of $40,000 to the General
Fund. The offsetting Stanford reimbursement for these costs would be
$17,000.
Chair Shepherd asked if Staff needed a Motion incorporating that
information.
Mr. Perez requested the FC add this information to any Motion to approve
the Budget.
Vice Mayor Scharff noted the proposal to freezing 6 FTEs, and asked what
those FTEs would normally do.
Deputy Fire Chief Catherine Capriles explained currently those 6 FTEs were
being moved around, but they would eventually be all line personnel; two
fire fighters, two operators and two captains.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired if the positions were being frozen because they
were vacant.
Ms. Capriles responded correct.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if those positions were needed.
Ms. Capriles replied yes. These positions would affect the flexible staffing
scenario in that it would happen more often.
Vice Mayor Scharff noted there was not an issue with adding positions when
they were needed. He inquired why Staff wanted to hold these positions
rather than eliminate them.
Ms. Capriles reported Staff would perform an analysis of flexible staffing to
determine the effect it had on responses and whether it was an acceptable
change in response service levels.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked for a response from the City Manager's Office.
MINUTES
Page 37 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
Sr. Financial Analyst Amber Cameron reported the six frozen positions were
connected to the flexible staffing scenario, in which Engine 2 would be taken
out of service when staffing fell below a certain level on any given day.
Ms. Antel indicated Staff had determined that flexible staffing for Engine 2
could be implemented safely based on the numbers from throughout the
City. Based on the prior year's Fire Staff absence rate, 6 FTEs was the
equivalent number of positions that could potentially be eliminated from the
Budget. However, Staff wanted to ensure the program worked practically as
well as theoretically before eliminating the positions.
Vice Mayor Scharff suggested eliminating the positions now, and adding
them later if the program was not feasible.
Ms. Antel explained Staff preferred to keep the paper trail in the Budget with
the number of FTEs to prevent future confusion. She stated in theory those
positions could be eliminated, and Staff would ask the FC to add them in the
future if the program did not work out.
Vice Mayor Scharff did not think this issue related to SLAC.
Ms. Antel agreed it did not relate to SLAC. She reported SLAC provided an
opportunity for Staff to place resources in other areas.
Mr. Keene thought it was slightly different than the Police situation. Staff
had performed a study and time comparisons. Staff needed to determine if
flexible staffing could work, and would perform a study on operational issues
after adoption of the Budget. He felt the risk with Police was slightly higher
than in this particular situation. He stated there was a net increase in FTEs
on paper, along with a footnote indicating the true meaning of the freeze.
Given some of the objectives Staff tried to achieve in Fire Service in terms of
overall staffing, an elimination in the Budget would accurately reflect these
objectives. Staff could support eliminating the positions with the
understanding that, if flexible staffing was not feasible, Staff could request
adding the six positions.
Ms. Antel suggested the FC was not comfortable with freezing the positions.
Vice Mayor Scharff agreed with the City Manager that the Police situation
was riskier. He noted with Fire a study had been performed, it was well
thought out, and Staff had negotia ted minimum staffing. He did not feel
MINUTES
Page 38 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
there was a downside to eliminating the positions and making a structural
change.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff seconded by Council Member Burt to
tentatively approve with the changes eliminating the 6 FTE.
Mr. Keene confirmed the six positions proposed to be frozen would actually
be eliminated.
Vice Mayor Scharff thought the FC should make structural changes in the
Budget. He felt data indicated the 6 FTEs could be eliminated , and the
positions could be reinstated if flexible staffing did not work out; although,
Staff would need to justify reinstating the positions. He indicated there was
a precedence for adding positions. He thought Staff was not eliminating
positions in one area and then adding positions to the entire Department.
Rather Staff was freezing or eliminating positions, which was more
transparent to the public.
Mr. Keene agreed that was a better recommendation. Staff had indicated its
willingness to reduce capacity and to find ways to redeploy. The City had a
growing demand for emergency response and less for fire, and was adding 6
FTEs in emergency response. This shift of positions would allow the City to
provide better service.
Council Member Burt thought freezing positions did not present an accurate
picture and did not demonstrate the efforts being made to control costs. He
inquired about current overtime amounts for the Department.
Mr. Perez reported the Adjusted Budget for 2012 was $2.3 million, and the
actual number for 2011 was $2.1 million.
Ms. Capriles indicated the overtime amount for the current year would be
high, because vacant positions were filled through the use of overtime. The
overtime budget for 2013 would be different, because of eliminating the 12-
hour medic van and adding FTEs in emergency response.
Council Member Burt expressed concern regarding the historic pattern of
overtime in both the Police and Fire Departments. He wanted assurance
that the projected overtime amount for 2013 would be close to accurate.
MINUTES
Page 39 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
Mr. Perez noted Staff presented a clean-up Budget Amendment at year end,
and clearly explained the adjustments between areas of savings and areas of
deficits. Staff projected an overall deficit for 2013 because of retiree
medical benefits; however, Staff projected a surplus for 2012.
Ms. Capriles felt flexible staffing would contribute to the elimination of
overtime.
Council Member Price inquired if Staff knew the amount of estimated
overtime for the Foothill Station.
Mr. Perez explained the FC had requested quarterly updates; therefore, Staff
tracked such items as out-of-area fires and reimbursement for that. He
stated $280,000 was the amount of overtime for the Foothill Station.
Council Member Price thought the original proposal concerning freezing 6
FTEs was reasonable. She stated freezing positions did not add to costs,
and interpreted freezing positions as a placeholder.
Chair Shepherd supported the Motion, because of the study with the Fire
Department. She expected this to return holistically with recommendations.
Ms. Antel noted an update of Fire Resources Study recommendations was
scheduled before the Policy & Services Committee in June 2012, and that
would be made available to the Council.
Chair Shepherd inquired whether one Fire Chief position was vacant.
Ms. Antel responded yes. The City was recruiting a new Fire Chief/Assistant
Director of Public Safety.
Chair Shepherd stated the Study indicated the City should have a Public
Safety Director who served over both Departments. She asked if Staff had
decided not to follow that recommendation.
Mr. Keene indicated the Fire Chief would report to the Public Safety Director.
Chair Shepherd asked whether Fire Chief Dennis Burns would serve in two
roles.
MINUTES
Page 40 of 40
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/15/12
Mr. Keene said Chief Burns was serving as Public Safety Director with Fire
Command, with a vacancy in the Chief position. The Police Department was
also reporting to Chief Burns.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
Mr. Perez stated at the May 10, 2012 meeting, expenditures for the
Administrative Services Department (ASD) Budget were decreased by
$106,000. Some of those funds would be allocated to the General Fund,
resulting in a positive net of $58,000. Fire Department ex penditures
decreased by $40,000, because they belonged in the Enterprise Funds.
They were just short of $1 million. Staff would ask for $125,000 for the City
Attorney Contingency Fund during non-departmental Budget Wrap-up.
These changes assumed the FC's latest direction on the $500,000 for Animal
Services.
Chair Shepherd said Staff began with a negative of $1.22 million, which was
not accurate, because Staff was taking from Budget Reserves in order to
fund two one-time items.
Mr. Perez suggested having a Motion concerning that at Wrap up.
Chair Shepherd requested Staff place that with the attorney's fees. There
were two items, one for IT.
FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS
Mr. Perez reported a consultant would be available to speak regarding gas
rates. Staff would possibly request the FC to amend the order of the Agenda
at the next meeting in order to hear from the consultant.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:48 P.M.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3001)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 7/23/2012
July 23, 2012 Page 1 of 5
(ID # 3001)
Summary Title: Proposed Revenue Increases and Expenditure Reductions for
Animal Services
Title: Public Hearing: Proposed Revenue Increases and Expenditure Reductions
for Animal Services
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Police
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council review the proposed Animal Services revenue increases, expenditure
reductions, and staffing allocations and approve the adoption of the municipal fee changes related to
Animal Services.
Background
The City Council approved a $449,105 reduction to the net cost of Animal Services to the City as part of
the FY 2013 budget. Staff sought feedback from a Stakeholder Group comprised of Palo Alto Animal
Services (PAAS) shelter staff, Friends of the Palo Alto Animal Shelter, area humane societies, private
veterinarians, and other interested individuals to discuss and determine how best to reduce the budget,
increase revenues and/or engage in partnership while still providing the high level of service the
community has experienced in past years. While the Stakeholder Group is still meeting, staff has
developed a proposal with Stakeholder input to achieve the budget reduction with on-going, structural
expenditure reductions, fee revenue increases (which are outlined in this CMR) and the one-time use of
some donations.
Table 1 outlines the financial impact of the proposed changes with both the timeline in FY2013 as well
as a scenario showing the annualized impact. The revenue amounts shown below are the net impact of
the proposed revenue increases. The gross revenue that will be added to the FY2013 budget will be
$302,437 which includes the one-time donations, and the 5% technology fee and other fee increases
already accounted for in the FY2013 Adopted Budget.
Table 1: Financial Impact of Proposed Changes
Revenue Increases Effective
August 1 Annualized
Scenario
July 23, 2012 Page 2 of 5
(ID # 3001)
Spay/Neuter Revenue Increase
- Increase volume by 25%, booking 3,000 appointments annually
- Increase Resident/Partner City Fees by average of 22%
- Increase Non-Resident/Partner Fees by average of 50%
$131,810
$143,793
Dog Licenses
- Increase volume by 30% through partnering with local veterinarians
- Increase fees to all owners by average of 23%
$25,553
$27,876
Vaccination Revenue
- Increase fees to all customers by 33%, except for rabies vaccination
$8,931
$9,743
Adoptions
- Increase fees to all customers by 25%
$3,609
$3,938
One-Time Donations (new in FY 2013)
- Santa Clara County $47,000
- Matties Fund $25,000
- Anonymous Donation for Volunteer Coordinator $35,000
$107,000
$0
Total Additional Revenue $276,903 $185,349
Expenditure Reductions Effective
January 1 Annualized
Scenario
Eliminate 1.0 FTE Animal Control Officer ($45,635) ($91,270)
Eliminate 1.0 FTE Supervisor Animal Services ($64,909) ($129,818)
Eliminate 0.5 FTE Volunteer Coordinator (Saved for FY 13) N/A ($56,213)
Eliminate 0.10 FTE Hourly Veterinarian, effective July 1st ($7,125) ($7,125)
Total Expenditure Reductions ($117,669) ($284,426)
Draw from Donations Received in Prior Fiscal Year $54,533 -
Total Placeholder Impact ($449,105) ($469,775)
Discussion
Staff’s proposal is comprised of approximately 40% revenue increases and 60% expenditure reductions
to meet the $449,105 FY 2013 net cost reduction target. This plan represents the best option to
maintain acceptable levels of service for the community and our partner cities while significantly
reducing Animal Services’ cost to the General Fund in FY 2013.
Revenue Increases
Proposed fee increases, which are included as attachment 1, are integral to the success of this plan and
are reasonably competitive given the significantly higher costs faced for many of these services in the
private marketplace and lack of suitable public competition for the same services. On June 14, 2012, the
stakeholder group held its first meeting and there was consensus that Animal Services fees needed to be
raised, although specific proposals were not discussed. Staff met separately with members of the
stakeholder group who expressed a particular interest in fees and discussed our current fee structure
and potential opportunities and challenges related to increasing or changing fees.
Spay and Neuter Fees
July 23, 2012 Page 3 of 5
(ID # 3001)
The most integral component of this plan is increases to spay/neuter fees and anticipated additional
surgery volume. Under this plan, Animal Services would continue to provide spay/neuter and
vaccination services to individuals not residing in Palo Alto or our partner cities, who account for
approximately 75% of spay/neuter volume and 60% vaccination volume (other services, such as
surrenders or animal control activities, are not offered to individuals outside of Palo Alto or its partner
cities). These individuals from outside of Palo Alto or our partner cities who receive service through the
spay and neuter clinic would see the most dramatic fee increases, but the costs for these increases are
still substantially lower than private veterinarian rates and competitive with other local low-cost
providers. Under this plan, the average costs of all spay and neuter surgeries at the shelter would be $95
for residents and $125 for non-residents.
In addition, members of the revenue subcommittee of the Stakeholder Group recommend that those
individuals using vouchers at the PAAS provided by the Palo Alto Humane Society (PAHS) be given the
resident fee. Staff concurs with this partnering recommendation as proposed by PAHS. Despite the
recommended higher fees, Staff does not anticipate negative impacts on the volume of surgeries
performed because of Palo Alto’s status as one of the few public low-cost spay and neuter clinics and
wider service availability. In addition, most of the surgeries performed at the shelter are for smaller
animals, which see the smallest increase in absolute dollar terms.
Maintaining a full-time veterinary staff and continuing to provide these services to individuals outside of
our service area is the most cost-effective option. Due to legal mandates to provide veterinary care to
injured stray animals and sterilization services for adopted animals, the City would be required to
provide veterinary services regardless of whether or not the City employed a veterinarian, likely through
a contract veterinarian and agreements with local animal hospitals. The City would likely have to pay a
minimum of $95,000 a year to provide this minimal level of service and could not offer spay/neuter or
vaccination services to the public, which would result in the loss of more than $200,000 annually in
revenue.
In addition, preliminary cost recovery information shows that the City currently provides a 39% subsidy
for providing spay and neuter services. Staff’s proposal reduces this subsidy substantially and mitigates
the burden of increased fees to residents and partner cities by raising fees for non-residents at a greater
rate than residents. Not only does this lessen the impact of fee increases on residents, it also assists in
sustaining the program as a whole since not providing these services to non-residents would necessitate
much higher resident fees to achieve similar revenue targets and would likely lead to fewer spay/neuter
surgeries performed.
Staff has also included an estimated 25% volume increase in the number of spay and neuters performed.
This is a conservative estimate to restore volume numbers to those similar to the past three years; as
well appointment availability will be expanded to ensure the target number of annual surgeries is
reached.
Other Services
Most vaccination fees will increase by $5, except rabies vaccines which will see no increase, and dog
licenses will be increased by $2-8 depending on the type and duration of license. In addition, dog license
revenue should continue to increase in part due to increased compliance activities, such as working with
area veterinarians to obtain rabies vaccination information in conformance with California Health and
Safety codes. The annualized net impact of all revenue increases is approximately $185,000. Staff does
July 23, 2012 Page 4 of 5
(ID # 3001)
not anticipate volume reductions in vaccinations or in pet licensing due to the small dollar amount of
the increases.
While significant volume reductions due to the fee increases are not anticipated, the precise impact on
volume is unknown and will have to be evaluated throughout the fiscal year. Staff recommends
reviewing revenue projections in November 2012 and supplementing any projected shortfalls with
additional draws from the Animal Services Donation Fund.
Expenditure Reductions
The plan also calls for the structural elimination of 2.6 Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) in Animal Services,
most effective on January 1, 2013, consisting of 1.0 FTE Animal Control Officer, 1.0 FTE Animal Services
Supervisor, 0.50 FTE Volunteer Coordinator, and 0.10 FTE Management Specialists (Hourly
Veterinarians). The annualized impact of these expenditure reductions is $284,426.
The reductions of management staffing through the elimination of the Animal Services Supervisor
position would require that longer-term planning such as disaster preparedness, training, participation
in numerous countywide programs, and mutual aid be prioritized against other day-to-day
responsibilities.
The Volunteer Coordinator position would be saved for FY 2013 due to an anonymous donation, but
would be eliminated in FY 2014. At that point, the shelter’s volunteer program would be maintained by
absorbing the duties of the Volunteer Coordinator into the responsibilities of the remaining staff. In
addition, PAAS may consider alternative options for these responsibilities in the future, such as having a
volunteer or group of volunteers take on the responsibilities of the volunteer program
The elimination of one Animal Control Officer (ACO) would result in field coverage going from two
officers to one officer 85% of the time. There would likely be a slight negative impact on response times
from this reduction in some instances. For example, there would be no back up officer in cases of
simultaneous calls for service, calls for service with multiple animals, or field coverage in times of illness,
vacation or family leave. With only one field officer on duty, field safety would require back-up response
from other public safety officers.
With the loss of Mountain View’s calls for service, average PAAS daily calls for service are expected to
decrease from approximately 10 per day to approximately 7 or 8 per day between the months of
November to April and decrease from approximately 13 per day to 10 per day between the mont hs of
May and October. This reduced level of calls will offset some of the impact of the position eliminations,
but could still result in days where lower priority calls, such as deceased animal pickups, experience a
delayed response and could be held over for the following shift during particularly busy days.
The mid-year period of May through October can consistently yield very high call volumes which will
significantly stress field service operations. For example, in 2011, PAAS had more than 25 days w here 14
or more calls for service were received and several days of more than 20 calls for service, not including
Mountain View calls for service. In these instances, there is a very high likelihood that low priority calls
would stack-up and be held over into the following day and overtime would be needed to clear higher
priority calls each shift. Calls requiring a police officer would be prioritized against other calls for service,
which would also impact response times and result in additional overtime.
July 23, 2012 Page 5 of 5
(ID # 3001)
Attachments:
2013 Animal Services Muni Fee Increases (PDF)
Prepared By: Ian Hagerman, Sr. Performance Auditor
Department Head: Dennis Burns, Police Chief
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
Dogs and cats
Rabbits
Parakeets, chickens, pigeons, doves
Cockatiels
Rats, hamsters, guinea pigs, mice
Exotics
Adoption Hold Fee
Cats
Dogs
Large animals (horse, cow, pig)
Rabbits
Small animals (reptiles, birds including poultry)
Dogs, cats, rabbits (per animal) – up to 20 lbs.
Each additional animal
Dogs up to 75 lbs.
Dogs 76 lbs. And over
Large animals up to 150 pounds (no animal
accepted overweight)
Small animals and birds
Request for transport of owned dead animals up
to 100 pounds
Birds, small animals
Domestic animals to 20 lbs.
Dogs 21 to 75 lbs.
Dogs 76 pounds and over
Cremation Service of Owned Animals
includes euthanasia, if applicable
Private Communal Private Communal Private Communal
0-24 pounds $130.00 $90.00 $141.00 $98.00 $140.00 $100.00
25-49 pounds $145.00 $105.00 $157.00 $114.00 $160.00 $115.00
50-75 pounds $160.00 $120.00 $173.00 $130.00 $175.00 $130.00
76-99 pounds $175.00 $135.00 $189.00 $146.00 $190.00 $150.00
100-150 pounds $200.00 $150.00 $216.00 $162.00 $220.00 $165.00
Custom engraved plaque additional fee
Impoundment Fees
Cat
First offense
Second offense
Third and subsequent offense
Dog – licensed
First offense
Second offense
Third offense
Fourth offense
Fifth - Tenth offense
Eleventh or subsequent offense
$40.00
$75.00
$110.00
$130.00
$30.00
$45.00
$60.00
$30.00
$45.00
$60.00
$110.00
$27.00
$43.00
$59.00
$38.00
$76.00
$108.00
$130.00
$11.00
$43.00
$16.00
$27.00
$43.00
$59.00
$108.00
$135.00
$162.00
$100.00
Actual cost, including
transportation expense, will be
charged to house the animal at the
$5.00
$3.00
$38.00
$9.00
$49.00
$108.00
$43.00
$5.00
$27.00
$40.00
$150.00
$100.00
$120.00
$35.00
$70.00
$40.00
$55.00
Disposal of Dead Owned Animals
$125.00
$10.00
$25.00
$15.00 $20.00
Euthanasia Fees (includes animal disposal)
$45.00
$55.00
$25.00
$135.00
$40.00
$5.00 $5.00
$40.00 $43.00
$25.00 $25.00
$25.00 $27.00
$5.00 $5.00
Fee established by Animal
Superintendent
Fee established by Animal
Superintendent
$27.00
$5.00
Fee established by Animal
Superintendent
$16.00
$16.00
$125.00
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Animal Services
2012 FEE 2013 PROPOSED FEE
Adoptions: include a $10.00 coupon off a future S/N surgery valid for 1 year from issue
$100.00
2013 ADOPTED FEES
In conjuction with advertised national and local animal welfare events, the Superintendent may lower the adoption fees to support the adoption of shelter
animals.
$20.00
Actual cost, including
transportation expense, will be
charged to house the animal at the
Actual cost, including
transportation expense, will be
charged to house the animal at the
Board Fees
To be paid in addition to impound fee for all stray and impounded animals (including owner-surrendered animals for rabies quarantine).
$15.00 $20.00
$15.00
Fees are per calendar day, including day received.
$5.00 $5.00
$3.00 $3.00
$35.00 $40.00
$100.00 $110.00
$59.00
$108.00
$45.00
$8.00 $9.00
$50.00
$55.00 $60.00
$10.00
$165.00
City of Palo Alto FY 2012 Municipal Fee Schedule 20-1
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Animal Services
2012 FEE 2013 PROPOSED FEE2013 ADOPTED FEES
Dog – unlicensed
First offense
Second offense
Third offense
Fourth offense
Fifth - Tenth offense
Eleventh or subsequent offense
Other Animals
Large animal (horse, cow, pig, goat)
Small animal (bird, rabbit, reptile)
Special Impoundment Fees
Dog – licensed
Dog – unlicensed
State Mandated Fees
First offense
Second offense
Third and subsequent offense
Licenses and Pet Identification
License for a period of: Per Dog If Spayed or
Neutered
Per Dog If Spayed or
Neutered
Per Dog If Spayed or
Neutered
12 months $30.00 $15.00 $32.00 $16.00 $40.00 $20.00
24 months $50.00 $25.00 $54.00 $27.00 $60.00 $30.00
36 months $70.00 $35.00 $76.00 $38.00 $80.00 $40.00
Late Fee - Thirty (30) days after expiration, or
after 10 days in the case of new residents. Late
Fee also applies for licenses which are
purchased in response to a citation or animal
impound.
$20.00 $30.00 $22.00 $32.00 $30.00 $30.00
Cat ID
Cat ID-altered animal
Replacement license tag (dogs)
Miscellaneous Sales, Pet Supplies
Animal Control Officer/Veterinary Technician
City Veterinarian
Quarantine Home Inspection Fee
IM & SQ
IV
IV solu-delta cortef 100 mg
IV solu-delta cortef 500 mg
IV
IM
Gas
Local
SQ (cat)
SQ (dog)
IV catheter plus insertion
IV fluids
IVAC set up and use
Minimum surgery and preparation
Surgical time/Vet treatment time
$38.00
$100.00
$125.00
$170.00
$200.00
$100.00
$25.00
$50.00
$70.00
$95.00
$135.00
$49.00
$70.00
$92.00
$135.00
$162.00
$189.00
$76.00
$32.00
$38.00
$49.00
$54.00
$24.00/liter
$16.00/day
$38.00
$54.00
$11.00/5 years
$5.00/5 years
$5.00
$56.00/hour
$108.00/hr
$27.00
$38.00
$43.00
$54.00
$35.00
$100.00
Unaltered, impounded stray dogs and cats.
Includes any animal impounded or found running at large in Foothills Park, Byxbee Park and Baylands preserve.
$50.00
$45.00
$65.00
$85.00
$81.00
$22.00
$76.00
$114.00
$125.00
$150.00
$22.00/liter
$15.00/day
$20.00
$10.00/5 years
$35.00 $40.00
$16.00/day
$30.00 $32.00
$35.00
$45.00
$38.00
$49.00
$54.00
$24.00/liter
$50.00
$54.00
$81.00 for first 30 minutes, $1.50
per minute thereafter
$43.00
$50.00 $54.00
$70.00 $76.00
$75.00 for first 30 minutes, $1.50
per minute thereafter
$50.00
$81.00 for first 30 minutes, $1.50
per minute thereafter
$56.00/hour
$100.00/hr $108.00/hr
$5.00/5 years $5.00/5 years
$5.00 $5.00
$52.00/hour
The following charges are applicable to sick and/or injured stray animals and are payable at the time of redemption. Included in the fees are the
Veterinarian and Technician’s time as well as the cost of materials.
At cost outside veterinary treatment will be the responsibility of the animal owner.
$25.00 $27.00
$35.00 $38.00
$40.00
$38.00
$108.00 per hour$100.00 per hour $108.00 per hour
Fee set by the Superintendent, Animal Services Division.
Veterinary Services
Miscellaneous Service Fees
Injections
Sedation-Anesthesia
Fluid Therapy
$175.00
$75.00
$50.00
$100.00 $100.00
Surgery (not including anesthesia)
$35.00
$50.00
$10.00/5 years
$70.00
$35.00 $35.00
$105.00
City of Palo Alto FY 2012 Municipal Fee Schedule 20-2
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Animal Services
2012 FEE 2013 PROPOSED FEE2013 ADOPTED FEES
Oral or Topical treatment
Flushing drains
Force Feeding
Flourescein Eye Stain
Intensive Care (additional)
Incubator/ICU cage with O2
Medical Grooming
Medication - Rx fee
Special Prescription Diets
Wormings - Interceptor
Bandage paw
Robert Jones
Splint
Cite CPV test
Azostick or Dextrostick
Heartworm test
DTM
Fecal
FeLV/FIV test
Multistix urinalysis
PCV
PCV/TP
Skin scraping
Reference Lab (CVD)
Kennel, birds, or animals
Breeding permit - cat, dog, or bird
Dangerous animal including microchip
Livery stable, boarding stable
Livestock
Pet Shop/Groomer
Boarding
Pet Show or Fun Match
Pony ride, pony ring
Riding academy
Traveling menagerie or zoo
Spay and Neuter Clinic Fees Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident
Cat Neuter (male)**$65.00 $90.00
Cat Spay (female)**$95.00 $130.00
0-30 pounds $100.00 $135.00
31-50 pounds $115.00 $155.00
51-75 pounds $135.00 $175.00
76-99 pounds $155.00 $210.00
100 pounds and over $250.00 $325.00
0 - 30 pounds $120.00 $160.00
31 - 50 pounds $135.00 $175.00
51 - 75 pounds $155.00 $210.00
76-99 pounds $190.00 $250.00
100 pounds and over $270.00 $345.00
Rabbit Neuter $75.00 $95.00
Rabbit Spay (female)$100.00 $120.00
Rat Spay (female)$100.00 $120.00
Rats, Guinea Pigs (male)$75.00 $95.00
Clinic Board Fee per day – all animals (Special
arrangements required)
$20.00 $20.00
Late fee for Spay and Neuter Pickup $25.00 $25.00
48 hour cancellation fee (non-refundable)$25.00 $25.00
No show fee (non-refundable)$50.00 $50.00
$165.00
$165.00
$165.00
$165.00
$100.00
$325.00
$165.00
$60.00
$165.00
$165.00
$60.00
$162.00
$162.00
$54.00
$324.00
$162.00
$54.00
$162.00
$0.00 $0.00
$211.00
$59.00
$87.00
$92.00
$103.00
$119.00
$141.00
$92.00
$87.00
$59.00
$16.00
$16.00
$27.00
$22.00
200% of our cost
$108.00
$119.00
$141.00
$168.00
$3.00 each time
$27.00
$32.00
$54.00 per hour
$81.00 per day
$81.00 per hour
$11.00 - $65.00
$5.00 per day
$27.00
Bandages/Splints
$5.00 each time
$16.00
$3.00 each time
$81.00 per day
$5.00 each time
$15.00 $16.00
$5.00 each time
$50.00 per hour $54.00 per hour
$75.00 per day
$3.00 each time
$40.00/animal
$20.00
$20.00
$43.00/animal
$22.00
$22.00
$80.00
Dog Neuter (male)**
$195.00
$100.00
Dog Spay (female)**
$110.00
$130.00
$95.00
$233.00
$70.00
$55.00
$80.00
$85.00
$300.00
$150.00
$50.00
$150.00
$50.00
$150.00
$150.00
$150.00
$22.00
200% of our cost
$150.00
$50.00
200% of our cost
$20.00
$54.00
$162.00
$162.00
$27.00
$15.00
$15.00
$25.00
$16.00
$16.00
$16.00
$27.00
$16.00
$35.00
$30.00
$25.00
$16.00
$38.00
$32.00
$5.00 per day
$75.00-95.00
$38.00
$32.00
$38.00
$65.00
$25.00-40.00 $26.00-43.00
$27.00 $25.00
$75.00 per hour $81.00 per hour
$10.00 - $60.00 $11.00 - $65.00
$30.00 $32.00
$26.00-43.00
$70.00
$77.00-102.00
$70.00
$77.00-102.00
$35.00
$15.00
$38.00
$5.00 per day
$110.00
$130.00
$215.00
$65.00
$155.00
$15.00
$85.00
$55.00
$3.00 each time $3.00 each time$3.00 each time
Common Procedures (not including anesthesia)
Labwork
Permits (annual fee or per event)
City of Palo Alto FY 2012 Municipal Fee Schedule 20-3
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Animal Services
2012 FEE 2013 PROPOSED FEE2013 ADOPTED FEES
Nail Clip
Droncit injection (tapeworms)
Dewclaw removal (per dewclaw)
Deciduous teeth extraction (per tooth)
Wound care
Antibiotic injection
Rx for clinic
Special Rx
Previously spayed/neutered
Feral rescue own vaccine
Feral rescue own Felv/FIV test
Umbilical hernia
Cryptorchid plus neuter fee
Pre-surgical labwork
Obesity fee plus spay fee
Pregnancy fee plus spay fee
Ear mite treatment
Heartworm
Leukemia/FIV Combo test
Bordetella
FVRCP
DA2PP
Leukemia/vaccine
Rabies
Rabies (Actual Cost Clinic)
Puppy Package Included is DA2PP vaccine at
8,11 and 15 weeks of age; rabies vaccine at 16
weeks of age, and a microchip
Kitten Package Included is FVRCP vaccine at
8,11 and 15 weeks; rabies vaccine at 16 weeks
and a microchip
Microchip
Microchip rescue group
Deposit per trap (2 trap maximum)
Minimum rent for first 3-day usage
Additional per day rent (calendar day) max 14
days
Training/Behavior Classes
Pre-registration (required)
Behavior Consultation
$40.00
$20.00
$10.00
$6.00
$100.00
$100.00
$20.00
$20.00
$20.00
$20.00
$35.00
$5.00
$15.00
$75.00/hour plus $81.00/hour plus
$25.00-$100.00 $27.00-$108.00
$10.00
$6.00
$81.00
$81.00
$16.00
$16.00
$16.00
$16.00
$108.00
$16.00
$6.00
$35.00
$75.00
$38.00
$32.00 with surgery only
$32.00 with surgery only
$16.00-54.00
$16.00
$16.00-54.00
cost + $16.00 service fee
Testing
$38.00 - $70.00
$5.00
$16.00-135.00
cost + $26.00 service fee
$22.00-43.00
$16.00 - $54.00
$26.00
Trap Rental
$10.00
$15.00
$32.00
$22.00
$16.00-54.00
$15.00
$15.00 - $50.00 $20.00 - $75.00
$25.00 $30.00
$30.00 with surgery only $35.00 with surgery only
$30.00 with surgery only $35.00 with surgery only
$100.00 $100.00
cost + $26.00 service fee
$20.00-40.00 $22.00-43.00
$5.00 $5.00
$16.00
$20.00
Services performed by the City Veterinarian in conjunction with spay and neuter surgeries
$5.00 $5.00
$30.00 $35.00-50.00
$20.00 $25.00
cost + $25.00 service fee
$15.00 $16.00
$5.00
** A $5.00 discount will be applied to all dogs and cats five months or younger.
* The animal shelter staff reserves the right to refuse service to any animal they deem unsuitable for reasons of safety, housing, etc.
$75.00
$35.00 - $65.00
$16.00
$15.00-50.00
$15.00
$15.00-50.00
cost + $15.00 service fee
Vaccinations
$15.00
$16.00-54.00
cost + $16.00 service fee
$35.00-75.00
$15.00-125.00 $25.00-150.00
$15.00
$15.00
City of Palo Alto FY 2012 Municipal Fee Schedule 20-4
MINUTES
Page 73 of 81
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/23/12
Mayor Yeh returned to the original Motion. He thanked Staff for their efforts
and the said the amount of time put in was significant. He thought that
would only intensify as the process moved forward. There was a deficit of
trust between merchants and the City and it would take a concerted effort to
work with merchants. He thought the project was a great vision for
California Avenue in the long term. Having a clear vision and a program that
would continue to make California Avenue a destination did not make it
easily digested by those currently on the street. He thought that with the
area development plan coming forward in the fall it was essential that there
were meetings with the merchants before it came to Council. He wanted the
design phase of the project incorporated into a broader discussion with the
merchants. That was hopefully a step forward to really incorporate the kind
of development discussed by the Council for that particular region.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
23a. (Former Agenda Item No. 20) Consideration of a Vote of Support for
the Revote High Speed Rail Initiative.
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Price
to continue Agenda Item No. 23a to September 4, 2012, to be the first
Action item heard.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
23. Public Hearing: Proposed Revenue Increases and Expenditure
Reductions for Animal Services.
Pam Antil, Assistant City Manager, said that the Council directed Staff to
work with an Animal Services stakeholder group to bring a series of
recommendations on how they could close the gap on the proposed budget
to expenditure reductions that were needed. Staff had three meetings with
the Animal Services stakeholder group. They would bring back some
additional information to the Council in the future, but because of the need
for revenue changes Staff wanted the public hearing that evening so that
they had a longer period of time during the fiscal year to benefit from
increases in the fee schedule. She hoped Council had received the answers
to the questions they asked earlier in the day.
Mayor Yeh said there were two public speakers.
Public hearing opened at 11:42 P.M.
MINUTES
Page 74 of 81
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/23/12
Leonor Delgado said there were three areas of concern she wanted to
address. First the proposed schedule of fees for Fiscal Year 2013 with
particular attention to the increased fees for non-residents at the spay and
neuter clinic. She said residents of wealthier neighboring cities such as
Atherton and Menlo Park seeking a bargain would continue to get a good one
under the revised fee schedule. She was concerned about residents of East
Palo Alto, East Menlo Park, and other unincorporated areas of San Mateo
County who depended on Animal Services and would be adversely affected
by increased fees. Increased fees could affect a person’s decision to spay
their animal, which could dramatically increase feral animal populations.
She said the fees increased at the Animal Services spay and neuter clinic
were not competitive with those charged by low cost clinics which rescuers
and low income people frequented. The spay and neuter fee increases
would negatively impact rescue groups operating outside the contracted
cities. She said that peninsula nonprofits would need to dispense a larger
number of spay and neuter vouchers to low income users, which would
deplete them earlier in the year. Second, she was concerned that higher
adoption fees could result in animals staying at the shelter for longer periods
of time, not freeing up space for other adoptable animals.
Mayor Yeh said that further comment could be provided to the City Clerk and
would be distributed to the City Council.
Luke Stangel said three and a half months ago the Palo Alto Animal Shelter
faced a bleak future. Today they had a brighter future. The proposal was a
mixture of higher fees and laying off two people. He explained he was a
stakeholder group member, President of the Friends of the Palo Alto Animal
Shelter, and he thought higher fees were appropriate. He asked that the
City Council consider closing Animal Control Officers positions through
attrition rather than laying off. Avoiding the layoffs through attrition helped
the department retain its institutional edge while balancing the budget in a
more humane way.
Public hearing closed at 11:48 P.M.
Council Member Holman said that the Staff report indicated the stakeholder
group met once with Staff, and the question’s response stated there were
three meetings. She asked what the stakeholder group’s reaction was to the
proposed fees, or if the stakeholders were provided with a schedule of fees
to which they could respond.
Ms. Antil apologized for the confusion. There was a revenue subcommittee.
They asked the stakeholders at the first meeting to volunteer because they
knew it was something they needed to work on quickly. She said that they
MINUTES
Page 75 of 81
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/23/12
had representatives from the Palo Alto Animal Services Shelter and from the
Silicon Valley Human Society, the Palo Alto Humane Society, and others.
Several of those members met with Staff and looked at the averages in the
City as well as non-resident fees that shelters charged around the area.
There was a conversation and discussion about if that would drive away
people. She said it was the group’s consensus that they move forward.
They were challenged to balance the revenue enhancements with other
reductions. The stakeholder group agreed with Staff that it was better to
raise some of the out of area fees than to further reduce Animal Services
Staff. She said that when you examined the out of area fees they charged
they were still mid-line compared to other areas and were quite a bit lower
than the private sector. They believed there could be a drop off, but they
were looking at marketing the fees and getting more folks into the spay and
neuter clinic. She said the stakeholder group was still meeting and
searching for additional ways that they could enhance services and market
in other areas. They wanted to present the fee increase to Council sooner so
that more of the fiscal year benefited from the increase. Without the
increase they had to make more reductions in expenditures.
Council Member Holman said three comparatives were Bay City’s, which was
in Milpitas, Four Paws, and Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority (SVACA).
Those were shelter and rescue facilities, not private sector. When you
compared the dog neutering with Four Paws, their range was $100-170,
while Palo Alto’s was $100-325. With dog spay it was $120-200, while Palo
Alto’s was $120-345. There was less of a disparity with cats, but it was still
pretty high. She said it seemed that there was a large reach and asked how
they would attract people from East Palo Alto or Menlo Park since they were
not that competitive.
Ms. Antil said they should have clarified that the $300-345 range was a non-
resident neuter fee that Palo Alto was charging for what they referred to as
large dogs. There were maybe three or four large dogs handled per year.
She could not speak for the other agencies, but some would not take really
large dogs.
Council Member Holman said the Charter said 100 pounds. She said that
because the fees were as high as they were, vouchers would not go as far.
She asked if the fees were that high and the Humane Society had vouchers
would the public go somewhere else to have animals spayed.
City Manager, James Keene said they were instituting the fees in order to
get an early start in the fiscal year and test the experiences with the
revenues because the budget recommendations were a combination of
revenue increases and expenditure cuts. He said the comparison with
MINUTES
Page 76 of 81
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/23/12
SVACA could be a false comparison. It could be that the expenditure unit
costs were less so the revenues they had to charge to cover the costs were
less. The City was trying to maintain a certain level of service and balance
the expenditure costs. This was intended to strike a balance and by
implementing the revenues early they had a chance to test that. If they got
into the first quarter and saw difficult trends they had the option to make
modifications.
Council Member Holman asked when the item would return to Council for a
status update.
Mr. Keene said that he did not know that Staff would return with the issue
unless they saw that there was a trend problem, whether that was that
revenue was not coming in the right way, or some other issue, unless there
was a specific directive that came to them from Council in addition to
making sure they met the necessary financial numbers.
Council Member Holman said she was interested in the financial aspects but
also the number of animals serviced. She asked where fundraising fit into
the budget.
Ms. Antil said she wanted Mr. Hagerman to discuss the fee chart further
before they discussed fundraising.
Ian Hagerman, Police Department, Senior Management Analyst, said a large
proportion of the spay and neuter surgeries done in the City were at the
bottom of the fee range. About 75 percent of the dogs spayed and neutered
were in the very lowest fee category. The absolute increase in that category
was minimal. He said they did a very high volume in cat spay and neuters.
If one looked at the entire spectrum of spay and neuter surgeries at the
clinic the average neuter fees were $95.00 and the average spay fees were
about $25.00. The cost for larger animals was more substantial, but the
volume of those was almost nonexistent. He said they completed three
large dog spays in 2011. Those people paid substantially higher fees at a
private veterinarian and some local shelters would not accept those large
animals. Staff felt that while some of the recommendations for fee increases
were aggressive they were still competitive.
Council Member Holman clarified he was discussing the proposed fees.
Mr. Hagerman said that was correct. He said the numbers represented the
average fees for cat and dog spays and neuters across the full spectrum.
They averaged it based on volume in Palo Alto under the proposed fee
schedule.
MINUTES
Page 77 of 81
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/23/12
Vice Mayor Scharff wanted to address the point made by Mr. Stangel. He
asked if there was any indication that an Animal Services worker was
retiring. He realized it was a difficult process to go through, but he thought
Staff did a good job in creating a plan that worked. He confirmed that the
City Council did not deal with the layoffs, it only handled the fees.
Ms. Antil said that was correct, but Staff was also there to provide an
overview if anyone had questions beyond what was in the recommendation
about what they proposed.
Mr. Keene thought the requirement as it related to the item was that they
had to have a public hearing related to the fee portion. They either wanted
the Council’s blessing on the expenditure reductions, or if they did not
receive it they needed to be clear they could proceed without returning to
the Council. Part of the schedule was developed to give everyone as much
advance notice as possible.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Klein to
adopt the municipal fee charges related to animal services, and the
expenditure reductions.
Vice Mayor Scharff said he wished they did not have to make the
recommendation, but circumstances had dictated it. It was not easy to lay
employees off or suggest layoffs. He would rather go through attrition as a
process, but did not see it as a viable alternative given the City finances.
Council Member Klein agreed that it was hard to layoff good people.
However, the service area had been reduced so it was inevitable. He
confirmed that the layoffs did not occur until January 1,
2013.
Ms. Antil said that was correct.
Council Member Klein said that if there were more revenues or donations
they could possibly avoid some of the layoffs.
Ms. Antil said that they would return to Council at that point. The Staff
report showed a donation they received to cover the cost of a staff member
through the end of the year.
Council Member Klein said that was a message to the Friends of the Palo
Alto Animal Shelter.
MINUTES
Page 78 of 81
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/23/12
Mr. Keene clarified that what needed to be achieved was ongoing structural
savings. If they received donations that offset an expenditure cost in a
particular year that would only delay a possible decision unless it was a
sustainable donation.
Council Member Burt said the Animal Services Staff had specialized skill
sets. He asked if there was a bumping process where the Staff was eligible
for other positions.
Ms. Antil said some of the positions may be eligible to apply for additional
positions. She needed clarification from Mr. Beacom if Staff could bump
someone.
Council Member Burt said that the reality was that just as the City went
through significant Staff reductions over the last several years it initially
looked like the City might have layoffs, but in the end they had attrition that
worked out. He said that was not so likely in a small department, but he
wanted to put it in that context.
Bob Beacom, Assistant Police Chief, said there were bumping rights for one
of the positions. There were currently three positions. One was
management, another was Service Employees’ International Union (SEIU)
with no bumping, and the third one was eligible. There was a placeholder in
the Police Department where they thought one of the Animal Control Officers
could go if needed.
Council Member Burt asked if the people were still eligible to pursue other
openings within the organization.
Mr. Beacom said they were and that he had been working closely with
Marcie Scott to identify any other positions within the City. They discussed
the process knowing that these were valuable employees and would do all
they could to find positions for them.
Council Member Schmid asked for confirmation of the total number of people
working in Animal Services.
Ms. Antil said she believed there were 13 full time equivalent employees.
Not all of the people were full time.
Council Member Schmid said the 2.5 positions they were cutting represented
approximately 25 percent. The revenues fell 30 percent with Mountain View
leaving and the Staff cuts were equivalent to 20 percent. He said what
struck him was that they cut half of the Animal Control Officers. He asked if
MINUTES
Page 79 of 81
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/23/12
that was the right position to cut since it was the one that was most
immediately on call.
Sandy Sadler, Superintendent of Animal Services said they currently had 3.5
Animal Control Officers in the field. So they cut one full time position which
left 2.5 in the field and one in the shelter.
Council Member Schmid said the text said that there were 2 Animal Control
field people currently and that there would only be one in the future.
Ms. Stadler said there would be 2.5 left in the field.
Council Member Schmid confirmed that part of that was in the shelter rather
than in the field.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council
Member XXXX to direct Staff to return to Council before the end of the year
with: 1) a financial report; 2) the type and number of services performed
(spay, neuter, and adoptions trend); and 3) a plan for additional products
and services.
Vice Mayor Scharff thought they had too many things that reported to
Council. He preferred the item not return unless there was a problem. He
thought it was inefficient.
Council Member Holman said that did not give Council an update on the
plans for new products and services, which was another way to raise
revenues.
Mayor Yeh said the maker of the Motion did not accept the language.
Council Member Holman asked if there was a second if offered as an
Amendment. She clarified the language.
AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND
Council Member Holman said she did not know when Council would hear
back from the stakeholder’s group.
Mr. Keene said they could do that, but he respectfully reminded the Council
that when the group was established they made a very clear point that it
was not a task force but an advisory group to the Staff. He thought it was in
the City and Staff’s interest that the revenue programs work as well as
possible and they managed the transition on the expenditure side as best
MINUTES
Page 80 of 81
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/23/12
they could. He said that if anyone came up with a new idea, product, or
plan Staff would act on it as they moved forward. He said that with all City
services Staff was always making adjustments and recommendations. There
was nothing that precluded a stakeholder from directly communicating to
the Council at Oral Communications or other ways. He thought if they had
relevant information that showed the trends it was normal for Staff to place
an informational item for the Council to be aware of things. If the trends
were disturbing the Council could schedule subsequent directive and action
for discussion.
Mayor Yeh said his comments were in support of Council Member Burt’s
questions and the Police Department’s efforts to work with the employees
and look at alternative opportunities within the City. He stated there was a
group of Stanford students looking to partner with the Friends of the Palo
Alto Animal Shelter. They hoped to launch an online platform. He thought
there were potential community partners to work with the Friends of the
Palo Alto Animal Shelter to achieve fundraising goals. He felt that as the
cost of services increased the fee increase would not cover the cost and it
was still a decision by the City to continue subsidizing the services provided
by Animal Services. That was a continued affirmation of the value of the
services in Palo Alto.
Mr. Keene said that Mayor Yeh made a good point about the cost of services
study. It could be Council’s feedback and new policy directions that would
inform the Staff to revisit what it proposed and make sure it was in line with
Council’s thinking.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Klein reported on attending the Bay Area Water Supply and
Conservation Board of Directors meeting last week. The citizens of San
Francisco have obtained enough signatures to direct a committee to study
ways to drain Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and find another water source. The
issue that will be brought to Council after the break as there is concern that
only San Francisco residents will be able to vote on this measure and it
affects many other cities in the Bay Area.
Council Member Burt requested that the meeting be adjourned in memory of
Sally Ride.