HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07-2017 Item 08 - Agreement to Jointly Finance and Construct a Replacement Animal Services Shelter with the County and Citys listed Meeting Date: 2/7/2017
FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE
CITIES OF ARROYO GRANDE, ATASCADERO, GROVER BEACH,
MORRO BAY, PASO ROBLES, AND PISMO BEACH TO JOINTLY
FINANCE AND CONSTRUCT A REPLACEMENT ANIMAL SERVICES
SHELTER
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the Mayor to execute an Agreement in substantial conformance as shown in
Attachment A with the County of San Luis Obispo, and the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Atascadero,
Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Pismo Beach and Paso Robles to jointly finance and construct the
replacement of an animal services shelter.
DISCUSSION
Under state law, each incorporated City has the option of contracting with the County or
providing their own animal services consistent with the standards outlined under state law. All
seven cities in the County have, in turn contracted with the County for those services. Under this
service contract, all seven cities and the County share the cost of animal services based on a
formula that factors the agencies' proportionate use of field services and shelter services. The
City of San Luis Obispo approved a three-year contract for field services and shelter services at
its June 21, 2016 meeting. Services provided under that contract include: 1) Emergency and
non-emergency response of Animal Services Officers for injured and stray animals 2),
Investigative services for animal bites, abuse, and neglect, 3) Sheltering and quarantine services,
4) Dog licensing, 5) Animal adoption and other services as required either by State law or City
Municipal Code. Capital costs for the replacement of the shelter are not included in the costs
charged to Cities for field services or shelter services.
Background
The County Animal Services Division (“Division”) provides animal field services/ care and
shelter services throughout the unincorporated regions of the county, as well as within each of
the seven incorporated communities. Each city contracting with the Division is assessed an
annual service fee based upon their proportionate use of both field services and animal sheltering
together with the operational costs associated with each of these functions. The City’s current
contract for these services expires in July 2020. Costs charged to the city are $146,307 and are
included in the Police Department’s budget for 2016-2017. The County recently indicated that
these costs are estimated to increase to approximately $175,000 for the 2017 -2018 Fiscal Year
due to operational cost increases and a minor increase in field services by City residents.
The Division operates a single animal shelter to house and care for stray and owner relinquished
animals. This shelter, located at 885 Oklahoma Avenue in San Luis Obispo, is the county 's only
open intake animal shelter and receives approximately 4,500 animals annually. Dogs and cats
account for roughly 92% of the animals handled at the shelter with the remainder comprised of a
Packet Pg. 213
8
wide variety of animals ranging from rabbits, alligators, and emus to guinea pigs, monkeys, and
snakes.
Existing Shelter
The Animal Services shelter was constructed in approximately 1975 on a site which had
formerly been a landfill utilized in the 1940's by the US Army and Camp San Luis Obispo. As
initially designed, the structure totaled 6,600 square feet and was intended primarily for the
kenneling of dogs, with less than 38 square feet dedicated to the care and housing of cats; no
accommodations were made for other types of animals. Since then, additional building
modifications were constructed to accommodate dog runs adjacent to the kennels, corrals for
ranch animals, a small structure for cats, night drop-off kennels, an expansion for staff
administration, and renovation for the public lobby.
Current industry standards and public expectations of animal shelters have shifted substantially
and many of the shelter's original design features and characteristics are now outdated or
inconsistent with the current understanding of humane animal sheltering. The consequences of
these design issues relative to their impact on humane animal care are further compounded by
the effects of deferred maintenance, healthy utilization, and harsh environmental conditions.
Over time, roofing leaks have developed, walls and door frames have begun to deteriorate, and
the capacity of electrical and drainage systems have been overloaded. The lack of heating, poor
ventilation, and general facility layout promotes stress, illness, and behavioral problems in
sheltered animals. The austere and unwelcoming environment often discourages the general
public from visiting and is believed to have an adverse impact on adoption and stray reclaim
rates.
In 2010, the County contracted with Ravatt Albrecht & Associates to develop design plans for
Phase I of the remodel. Quickly, it became apparent that the scope of this project exceeded the
available funding and the dog kennel remodel component of the remodel was dropped. The
ability to design a remodel which could be constructed within budget was further complicated by
soil stability and potential methane off-gassing issues resulting from the shelter's location on an
abandoned landfill. During the environmental permitting process, it was determined that a permit
was required through CalRecycle1, adding additional time and cost to the development process.
Since then, the project received a post landfill closure permit through CalRecycle, and a permit
from the Air and Water Quality Control Boards.
In November 2013, the County received five construction bids from contractors· for the Animal
Services Cattery and Lobby Expansion project. Bids ranged between $1,245,200 and $1,382,000.
The lowest bid received exceeded the estimated construction cost or budget by $350,250, which
was 39% above the engineers estimated construction cost. In January 2014, staff recommended
and the Board of Supervisors rejected all bids for the Animal Services Cattery and Lobby
Expansion project. In light of the significant disparities between the project budget, operational
needs, and projected construction costs, the project was reassessed and an effort was made to
identify design modifications and alternative operational measures which might bring
construction costs within budget. During this reassessment, the identification of additional
structural problems, including the development of a large sinkhole directly adjacent to the
1 CalRecycle oversees the permitting of land use or other activities on active or abandoned land fill sites.
Packet Pg. 214
8
building, caused concern that further investment and attempts to rehabilitate the facility would be
fiscally irresponsible.
The County explored a potential partnership with Woods Humane Society to build and operate a
replacement facility. The County concluded the it was infeasible due to a number of factors with
the primary one being that that Woods was not amendable to managing an expansion of services
that they provided to the community. In April 2015, the County Board of Supervisors concluded
based on the totality of factors that remodeling the existing facility would be imprudent,
partnerships unlikely and therefore directed staff to pursue the development of a replacement
facility.
Proposed Shelter and MOA
The Board of Supervisors directed staff to pursue the construction of a new 15,000 square foot
facility (approximate) to fully address the facility needs and implement many of the
recommendations contained in the Humane Society of the United States and (HSUS) and SPA
report (Attachment B-Council Reading File). Further programming was required to define the
proper size for the facility and ultimately landed on the program description that is generally
outlined in Exhibit A to the proposed Agreement.
Staff is recommending the approval of the Agreement as it provides a mechanism to:1) share
costs based on proportionate use 2) clarifies service and shelter governance, and 3) contains
mechanisms to control construction costs and is a most efficient way to const ruct a shelter
consistent with state law and local service preferences and standards.
The issue of governance is a topic that the Cities believed should be a role that the Cities have in
terms of containing costs given the significant investment that each City was making. Moreover,
the timing of the completion of the facility will impact future budgets.
An important issue is one of how to best apportion capital costs associated with the replacement
facility and ensuring that the type of construction selected is the most economically and
efficiently one to meet existing and future needs of the region. Ultimately, through extensive
discussions with the County and Cities, the recommendation was made to distribute all costs for
the proposed shelter based on the proportional use percentage of Shelter use set forth in Exhibit
C of the Agreement.
CONCURRENCES
The Police Department concurs with the recommendation.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The County of San Luis Obispo is the lead agency under the California Env ironmental Quality
Act (CEQA). This means that will complete all required environmental review for the project
and the City as a responsible agency relies on the County’s environmental determination to meet
the City’s statutorily required CEQA mandates.
Packet Pg. 215
8
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed Agreement would apportion 12.09% of the estimated costs of $13.176 million,
plus a proportional share of $176,033(costs to be shared proportionately by cities only) to the
City of San Luis Obispo based on the average use of the shelter from 2013-2016. This amounts
to an estimated payment of approximately $100,000-$130,000/ year over the next 25 years with
the first year estimated at $186,000. Per the proposed Agreement, this amount could adjust
upward or downward based on a three year look back of actual shelter usage and Staff’s analysis
is that shelter usage has been fairly consistent and that actual future payments will be near the
amount established for the first three years.
Additionally, the Agreement contains cost containment provisions with respect to actual costs
and provides a mechanism to reduce costs or allow a participating City to terminate the
agreement if costs exceed the estimated capital budget of $14.5 million. In the unlikely event
that costs exceed $14.5 million, Staff would return to the City Council for direction. The options
would be to either authorize a change in the Agreement for costs in excess of $14.5 million or
exit the Agreement and pay City’s proportionate share of all costs incurred when the Council
votes to exit. Remaining parties to the agreement would recalculate their ongoing share of costs
and the City would need to provide its own services and shelter. If the Agreement is approved,
the annual payments to the County will be incorporated into the 2017-2019 financial plan.
ALTERNATIVES
The City of San Luis Obispo could choose not to approve the agreement. That would leave the
City in the position of having to provide its own sheltering and field services as required by State
law in early 2020 at its sole expense. These costs are estimated to be significantly higher than
partnering with the other six cities and County. This would mean that the City would not benefit
from the economies of scale of sharing both capital and service costs. St aff has determined that
the City cannot provide its own animal field and shelter services and/or build its own facility for
less than approximately $305,000 2per year.
Attachments:
a - Animal Services Agreement
b - Council Reading File - SPoA Needs Assessment
2 Approximately $175,000 for field and shelter services and $130,000 per year for the proposed shelter capital costs.
Packet Pg. 216
8
Page 1 of 12
AGREEMENT FOR ALLOCATION OF CONSTRUCTION AND FINANCING COSTS FOR AN
ANIMAL SERVICES SHELTER AT 865 OKLAHOMA AVENUE IN SAN LUIS OBISPO,
CALIFORNIA, BETWEEN THE CITIES OF ATASCADERO, ARROYO GRANDE, GROVER
BEACH, MORRO BAY, PASO ROBLES, PISMO BEACH, AND SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
THIS AGREEMENT, dated for reference as of February 1, 2017 (the “Agreement”), is entered into by
and between the COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO (the “County”), and the cities of ATASCADERO,
ARROYO GRANDE, GROVER BEACH, MORRO BAY, PASO ROBLES, PISMO BEACH, AND
SAN LUIS OBISPO (each, a “City,” and collectively, the “Cities,” and, together with the County, the
“Parties”, or individually “Party”).
RECITALS
The County and each of the Cities are parties to a separate but similar Contract for Animal Care and Control
Services (“Services Contract”) effective as of July 1, 2016 and expiring, unless sooner terminated, on June
30, 2019, pursuant to which the County provides animal control services throughout San Luis Obispo
County, including within the jurisdictional boundaries of each of the Cities.
In conjunction with and pursuant to the Services Contract, the County operates an existing Animal Services
Shelter located at 885 Oklahoma Avenue in San Luis Obispo, California. Owing to the obsolescence of the
existing shelter, it is necessary to construct a new Animal Services Shelter (“Shelter” or “Project”) as
generally described in Exhibit A, at an address preliminarily identified as 865 Oklahoma Avenue, and as
generally depicted in Exhibit B (“Shelter Property”).
The Parties acknowledge the benefit of collaborative and joint efforts in constructing the Shelter.
The Parties enter into this Agreement to memorialize their participation and corresponding obligations with
regards to the allocation and repayment of the construction and financing costs for the Shelter.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:
1. Recitals.
The above Recitals are true and correct.
2. Estimated Project Construction Costs.
a) The Project construction costs, excluding the portion of the Oklahoma Ave./Utility Extension costs
to be borne solely by the County, and excluding the County-only costs of the remaining
depreciation value of the existing facility, demolition of the existing facility, and land costs, and
excluding costs to be shared proportionally only by the Cities, for the Shelter are estimated at this
time to be Thirteen Million One Hundred Seventy Six Thousand Five Hundred Dollars
($13,176,500) as shown in Exhibit D (the “Estimated Project Construction Costs”). The Estimated
Project Construction Costs include expenses for soft costs, such as architectural and engineering
services; County costs for administration, project management service, environmental review,
planning and building fees, and inspections; and hard costs, such as actual construction costs.
b) The Estimated Project Construction Costs shall only include those expenses and costs generally
described above, which are incurred by the County specifically for the Shelter construction project.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary below, the total Project Costs, as defined in Paragraph
5(a) below shall not exceed Fourteen Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($14,500,000)
without a written amendment to this agreement signed by all Parties.
Packet Pg. 217
8
Page 2 of 12
c) The Project will be managed as a “Design / Build” project, as approved by the County of San Luis
Obispo Board of Supervisors on April 12, 2016.
3. Excess Construction Costs
a) Prior to Authorization for Construction to Begin (“Construction Contract”).
(i) If the County receives information in the design or bidding process indicating that the
Estimated Project Construction Costs for the Shelter will exceed $13,176,500 by less than ten
percent (10%), the County shall provide written notice to each member of the Executive Board
(as defined in Section 9(b) below) of the revised estimated construction costs within a
reasonable period of time before such additional construction costs are incurred. The Executive
Board shall either approve or disapprove the additional construction costs, if any, by written
notice to the County, delivered within ninety (90) days after receipt of the County’s notice of
the revised construction costs. If any Executive Board member fails to timely approve in
writing, the Executive Board shall be deemed to have not approved and the County shall
promptly confer with all Cities regarding the additional construction costs and any means by
which such additional construction costs may be minimized.
(ii) If the County receives information as part of the design or bidding process indicating that the
Estimated Project Construction Costs for the Shelter will exceed $14,500,000, the County shall
immediately provide written notice to each City of the revised estimated construction costs
(“Excess Construction Costs”) and confer with the Cities as to whether to authorize the
Construction Contract or reject all bids. Each City shall either approve or disapprove the Excess
Construction Costs resulting in Estimated Project Construction Costs exceeding $14,500,000
by written amendment delivered to the County within ninety (90) days after receipt of the
County’s written amendment. If the decision is to authorize the contract, the County shall
prepare and deliver to the Cities a written amendment to this Agreement amending Section 2(b)
to increase the not-to-exceed amount. If any City fails to timely approve in writing, the City
shall be deemed to have disapproved. Should a City(ies) disapprove the Excess Construction
Costs, the County will immediately confer with all Cities in an attempt to reconcile the
disagreement. Should the Parties be unable to reach agreement, the measures shall be taken to
reduce the costs below $14,500,000 and in no such event shall the Parties be liable for Excess
Construction Costs absent a written amendment to this agreement.
(iii) If a City chooses to not participate in the shelter construction at that time, the City is allowed
to withdraw from this agreement and pay its proportionate share of all costs incurred as of the
date of withdrawal. The date of withdrawal shall be defined as the date that written notice is
received by the County of the City's desire to withdraw due to Excess Construction Costs
beyond amounts previously agreed. The County will recalculate future payments of the
remaining Parties using revised percentages of shelter use with the methodology in Section
6(a).
b) Authorization for Construction to Begin
(i) Upon County’s authorization for Construction to begin, total costs for the Project including any
incurred or future hard costs, soft costs, contingencies, and other miscellaneous costs related to
Shelter construction will be added to the estimated final construction costs (“Estimated Final
Construction Costs”). The Estimated Final Construction Costs will not exceed the Estimated
Project Construction Costs (or Excess Construction Costs), unless agreed to in writing by all
of the Parties in a written amendment to this Agreement. Should the Parties be unable to reach
agreement, measures shall be taken to reduce the costs below $14,500,000 and in no such event
Packet Pg. 218
8
Page 3 of 12
shall the Parties be liable for Excess Construction Costs absent a written amendment to this
agreement.
(ii) If a City chooses to not participate in the shelter construction at that time, the City is allowed
to withdraw from this agreement and pay its proportionate share of all costs incurred as of the
date of withdrawal. The date of withdrawal shall be defined as the date that written notice is
received by the County of the City's desire to withdraw due to Excess Construction Costs
beyond amounts previously agreed. The County will recalculate future payments of the
remaining Parties using revised percentages of shelter use with the methodology in Section
6(a).
c) After Authorization for Construction to Begin
(i) If the County becomes aware, after its authorization for Construction to begin, that the costs of
construction will exceed the Estimated Final Construction Costs due to unforeseen or other
conditions, the County shall provide written notice, to each City of the revised estimated
construction costs within a reasonable period of time before such additional construction costs
are incurred. Each City shall either approve or disapprove the additional construction costs, if
any, by written notice to the County, delivered within ninety (90) days after receipt of the
County’s notice of the revised construction costs. If any City fails to timely approve in writing,
the City shall be deemed to have not approved and the County shall promptly confer with all
Cities regarding the additional construction costs and any means by which such additional
construction costs may be minimized. No additional construction costs shall be incurred that
exceed $14,500,000 without a written amendment signed by all the Parties. Should the Parties
be unable to reach agreement, measures shall be taken to reduce the costs below $14,500,000
and in no such event shall the Parties be liable for Excess Construction Costs absent a written
amendment to this agreement.
(ii) If a City chooses to not participate in the shelter construction at that time, the City is allowed
to withdraw from this agreement and pay its proportionate share of all costs incurred as of the
date of withdrawal. The date of withdrawal shall be defined as the date that written notice is
received by the County of the City's desire to withdraw due to Excess Construction Costs
beyond amounts previously agreed. The County will recalculate future payments of the
remaining Parties using revised percentages of shelter use with the methodology in Section
6(a).
4. Financing
a) County Advance of Funds. The County shall advance funds required to pay for the costs of
construction of the Shelter. The County intends to finance the funds it advances, including County
in house soft costs.
i) County Sole Discretion as to Financing Terms. The County, at its sole discretion, shall
determine financing terms based on market rates and terms available at the time of financing.
The anticipated financing interest rate is estimated to be between 3.5%-5%, based on a 25-year
term, see Exhibit D. The County may finance the Estimated Final Construction Costs (hard,
soft, design, etc.) for the Shelter in addition to customary out of pocket costs to obtain
financing, if any. The County may choose to provide in-house financing, provided the interest
rate charged to the Cities does not exceed commercially available rates for like projects and
terms of financing are equal to or more favorable to Cities than terms otherwise available to
the County.
(1) The County will provide notification to the Shelter Executive Board of its intentions
regarding external or in-house financing at least 30 days prior to taking action on
Packet Pg. 219
8
Page 4 of 12
financing. Said notification will include final estimates of financing costs and anticipated
interest rates.
(2) Should the Cities desire to have costs identified as “Costs Shared Proportionally by Cities
Only” in Exhibit D included in any financing, the Cities shall provide written notification
to the County by October 31, 2017. Should all Cities fail to provide written notice, the
“Costs Shared Proportionally by Cities Only” will be proportionally allocated to each of
the Cities as shown in Exhibit C and billed accordingly, with a payment due date of
January 1, 2018.
ii) Estimated Project Financing Costs. The financing costs are estimated to range from $7,556,392
to $11,618,328, as shown in Exhibit D, depending on the applicable interest rate and whether
there are out of pocket costs to obtain financing (collectively “Estimated Project Financing
Costs”). If the actual interest rate is higher or lower than that estimated on Exhibit D, the actual
financing costs will vary.
5. Total Estimated Project Costs/Total Project Costs.
a) The Estimated Final Construction Costs and the Estimated Project Financing Costs are jointly
referred to as the Total Estimated Project Costs. Once the Shelter has been constructed and
financed, the County will prepare a final cost summary of the actual construction and financing
costs incurred by County in connection with the Shelter, excluding any costs that this Agreement
expressly provides shall be excluded from the calculation, to establish the total project costs and
annual repayment schedule based on the financing. Upon request, a City may review back up
material for the summary. After review and adjustment (if any) of the final cost summary by all
Parties, the approved final cost summary shall be known as the Total Project Costs. No City shall
unreasonably delay or disapprove the Total Project Costs.
6. Allocation of Total Project Costs.
(a) Allocation Based on Percentage of Shelter Use. Each Party shall pay its share of the Total Project
Costs, based on the annual repayment schedule associated with the financing. Each Party’s share
shall be based upon that individual Party’s percentage of shelter use. Shelter use is defined as the
number of shelter services (impounds, quarantines, animal surrenders, confiscations, euthanasia
requests, etc.) originating from, or requested by, an individual Party’s jurisdiction and/or its
residents. Each Party’s share shall be determined annually by the County as part of their normal
record keeping processes. The individual Party’s shelter use percentage shall be calculated using
the total number of shelter services allocated to an individual Party over the preceding three full
fiscal year periods, divided by the total number of all shelter services provided to all Parties over
the same preceding three full fiscal year periods.
%𝑆�𝑒𝑙𝑟𝑒𝑟 𝑆𝑟𝑒=( 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑦#𝑆�𝑒𝑙𝑟𝑒𝑟 𝑆𝑒𝑟𝑣�ℎ𝑐𝑒𝑟 𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟1 +𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑦 #𝑆�𝑒𝑙𝑟𝑒𝑟 𝑆𝑒𝑟𝑣�ℎ𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 2 +𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑦 #𝑆�𝑒𝑙𝑟𝑒𝑟 𝑆𝑒𝑟𝑣�ℎ𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 3 )
(𝑆𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑙#𝑆�𝑒𝑙𝑟𝑒𝑟 𝑆𝑒𝑟𝑣�ℎ𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 1 +𝑆𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑙 #𝑆�𝑒𝑙𝑟𝑒𝑟 𝑆𝑒𝑟𝑣�ℎ𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 2 +𝑆𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑙 #𝑆�𝑒𝑙𝑟𝑒𝑟 𝑆𝑒𝑟𝑣�ℎ𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 3)
Exhibit C indicates the percentage of each Party's actual use of the existing Animal Services shelter
for the Fiscal Years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16. Adjustments to each Party’s annual allocation
of Total Project Costs shall be adjusted annually based on the previous 3-year trailing average of
the percentages of shelter use.
b) Reallocation in the Event of Withdrawal or Termination. In the event that a Party withdraws or
terminates under Section 8 below, the allocation of each Party’s share of Total Project Costs shall
be adjusted upward for the remaining parties for the subsequent calendar year. The annual
calculation and any associated adjustments shall be made by December 31st of each year and shall
be due on July 1st of the next fiscal year.
Packet Pg. 220
8
Page 5 of 12
7. Use of Shelter
a) The Shelter shall only be used as an Animal Services facility. No other County department or
agency or other person or entity shall use any portion of the Shelter without the prior written consent
of the Operations Committee (as defined in Section 9 (a) below). Such use shall be accompanied
by the payment of an appropriate rental charge.
8. Termination and Withdrawal
a) Withdrawal Prior to Authorization of Construction/Payment of Allocation of Soft Costs.
i) Any Party may withdraw from this Agreement prior to County’s authorization of the
Construction to begin by giving a minimum of one (1) year’s written notice to all Parties and
by payment of its share, based on the allocation set forth in Section 6, above, of costs incurred
by County prior to date of receipt of notice of withdrawal. Notice shall be deemed received on
the date of personal delivery, or if mailed by U.S. mail, five (5) days after date of mailing.
Such costs shall be reasonably determined by County and a majority of the Parties of the
Executive Board, excluding any Party(ies) electing to withdraw. Any withdrawing Party shall
pay its share by the effective date of its withdrawal. A withdrawing Party who withdraws prior
to October 31, 2017 shall not be required to pay any portion of financing costs, regardless of
whether outside financing or in -house County financing is ultimately provided. Any payment
of soft or hard costs by a withdrawing Party shall be deleted from the amount to be financed.
The County will recalculate future payments of the remaining Parties using revised percentages
of shelter use with the methodology in Section 6(a).
b) Withdrawal After Construction Begins /Payment of Allocation.
i) Any Party may withdraw from this Agreement after the County’s authorization of construction
begin, by providing a minimum of one (1) year’s written notice to all of the other Parties and
prepaying its entire allocation of the Total Project Costs by the effective date of its withdrawal.
If a Party withdraws from this Agreement prior to October 31, 2017, any estimated financing
costs shall be deducted from the Total Project Costs before calculating the withdrawing Party’s
Total Project Costs share. If County provides in-house financing, any finance or interest charge
accruing or payable after the withdrawal shall be deducted from the Total Project Costs before
calculating the withdrawing Party’s share of the Total Project Costs. Withdrawal from the
Agreement shall be effective as of December 31 of the year stated in the written notice. The
County will recalculate future payments of the remaining Parties using revised percentages of
shelter use with the methodology in Section 6(a).
c) The County shall not terminate a City’s access to or use of the Shelter if the City is not in default
of its payment obligations. For the purposes of this Agreement, a City shall be deemed to be in
default if said City is sixty (60) calendar days or more in arrears o n any payment required under
this Agreement.
(i) Should the County desire to terminate a City’s access or use of the Shelter for default of its
payment obligations, the County shall include any non-defaulted Cities, at the non-defaulted
Cities’ sole discretion, in negotiations with the defaulted City, prior to their termination.
(ii) The County shall retain final decision authority to terminate any City’s access to or use of the
Shelter for default of said City’s payment obligations.
9. Animal Shelter Operations
a) An Operations Committee comprised of the County’s Health Agency Director or his/her designee
and a subset of City Managers or their designees shall be formed. At their sole discretion, all Parties
may be represented on the Operations Committee.
Packet Pg. 221
8
Page 6 of 12
b) An Executive Board composed of the County Administrative Officer (CAO) and a subset of the
City Managers (2-3) for each of the Cities, or their designees, shall consider significant policy or
budget changes and make recommendations prior to policy implementation or budget adoption for
the Shelter.
c) The Executive Board meetings shall be held as needed and in conjunction with the existing monthly
City Manager/CAO meeting. At a minimum, “Animal Services” shall be a standing item that is
considered twice in a calendar year. While any Party may request that “Animal Services” be added
to the agenda of any City Manager/CAO monthly meeting, it will be the responsibility of the chair
of the meeting to ensure Animal Services is placed on the agenda and satisfies the minimum number
of meetings required by this Agreement.
d) If the City Managers’ recommendation is different from that of the CAO on budget or policy
matters, the County shall include the City Managers’ recommendation in any related staff report to
the Board of Supervisors and provide a summary of the nature of any disagreement.
e) Final policy and budgetary authority for Shelter operations reside with the County Board of
Supervisors.
f) Future Services Contracts shall be for 3-year terms.
g) If a City chooses to provide its own field services, it must provide to all Parties, a one (1) year’s
written notice of its intent to provide its own services and to terminate, or (if applicable) not to
renew, its Services Contract with the County, except as otherwise expressly provided in its Services
Contract with the County,
h) Service Contracts shall be separate from the Parties’ obligations to finance and pay their
proportional and allocated shares of Total Project Costs for the Shelter.
i) The County’s repayment obligation of its share of the Total Project Costs shall not be included in
the calculation of the Shelter’s operating costs. The County shall charge no rent for the Shelter or
Shelter Property or otherwise attempt to obtain compensation from the Cities for those items
identified in Appendix D as “County Only Costs”.
j) Any City shall have the ability to provide its own separate field services. The costs for accessing
the Shelter shall be reasonably determined by the County after consulting with the Executive Board
and shall only be for the fair share reasonable operating costs for Shelter operations.
k) Any City that elects to not participate in Shelter Total Project Costs shall immediately cease as a
Party to this Agreement and the County shall not be required to provide any animal services to such
City. Such City shall be required to provide its own animal services and shelter, in accordance with
all applicable laws and statues, effective on a date mutually agreed to by the City and the County.
If the City and the County are unable to mutually agree to a date, termination will be effective upon
the expiration of the City’s existing Service Contract or the date a Certificate of Occupancy is issued
for the new Shelter, whichever occurs first.
10. Animal Shelter Planning
a) The Parties agree to form an ad-hoc value engineering team consisting of up to three (3) City
representatives and a minimum of two (2) County representatives. City representatives shall fully
participate with the County to assist with investigating and identifying the most effective and efficient
methods to construct a Shelter that meets all Parties’ existing and future animal service’s needs. The
value engineering team shall meet as needed and provide input with architects, designers, construction
managers, and engineers during the development of plans and specifications for the Shelter.
b) Prior to the authorization of the Construction Contract, the Executive Board shall be presented
project plans and estimated budgets, and provide a recommendation that will be included in the
CAO staff report to approve the contract by the Board of Supervisors.
Packet Pg. 222
8
Page 7 of 12
11. Effective Date
a) Except as set forth above, this Agreement shall be effective for the period from January 5, 2017
until each Party has made the last payment required under Section 6 or, if applicable, Section 8, of
this Agreement
12. Entire Agreement
a) This is the entire agreement among the Parties with respect to the Project and supersedes any prior
written or oral agreements with respect to the Project. In the event of a conflict between the terms
of this Agreement and the Services Contract, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail.
13. Assignability
a) Except as otherwise expressly provided for herein, no Party shall assign any of its obligations or
rights hereunder without the written consent of all Parties.
14. Notices
a) Any notices required to be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be given in writing and shall be
mailed to all Parties to the Agreement, directed to the County Administrative Officer and County
Counsel, and to the City Manager or City Administrative Officer and City Attorney of each City.
15. Audit
a) The Cities may inspect and/or audit all records and other written materials used by County in
preparing the Total Project Costs and annual invoices to each City.
16. Good Faith Efforts
a) The Parties shall each act in good faith in performing their respective obligations as set forth in this
Agreement and shall work diligently to maintain their longstanding cooperative relationships.
17. Amendment
a) This Agreement may only be amended in writing, signed by all Parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, by their execution below, the Parties agree to be bound to the obligations stated
herein, and the Board of Supervisors of the COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO has authorized and directed
the Chairperson of the Board of Supervisors to execute this Agreement for and on behalf of the County,
and the Cities of ATASCADERO, ARROYO GRANDE, GROVER BEACH, MORRO BAY, PASO
ROBLES, PISMO BEACH, AND SAN LUIS OBISPO have caused this Agreement to be subscribed by
each of their duly authorized officers and attested by their Clerks.
Dated: _______________ COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
_____________________ ____________________________
Clerk of the Board
Dated: _______________ CITY OF ATASCADERO
_____________________ ____________________________
City Clerk By:
Packet Pg. 223
8
Page 8 of 12
Dated: _______________ CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
_____________________ ____________________________
City Clerk By:
Dated: _______________ CITY OF GROVER BEACH
_____________________ ____________________________
City Clerk By:
Dated: _______________ CITY OF MORRO BAY
_____________________ ____________________________
City Clerk By:
Dated: _______________ CITY OF PASO ROBLES
_____________________ ____________________________
City Clerk By:
Dated: _______________ CITY OF PISMO BEACH
_____________________ ____________________________
City Clerk By:
Dated: _______________ CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
_____________________ ____________________________
City Clerk By:
Packet Pg. 224
8
Page 9 of 12
EXHIBIT A
Animal Services Facility
The quantities listed below were derived from a review of the existing Animal Services facility, the 2010
"Needs Assessment, Feasibility, and Building Program Study" by Shelter Planners of America, and
meetings with Animal Services Manager Eric Anderson.
Building Floor Area: 16,000 square feet
Outdoor Runs: 3,000
Incinerator, Cold Storage: 2,000
Sally Port, Truck Wash, Truck Parking (8 trucks): 4,200
Disaster Response Equipment: 1,200
Visitor Parking (15 spaces): 5,300
Staff Parking (20 spaces): 7,000
Large Animal Pens: 27,000
Subtotal: 65,700
Additional 20% for Circulation, Landscaping: 13,140
TOTAL: 78,840 square feet
Packet Pg. 225
8
Page 10 of 12
EXHIBIT B
865 Oklahoma Ave
Packet Pg. 226
8
Page 11 of 12
EXHIBIT C
(Number of Shelter Service Provided)
Cities City Name 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Total Percent
Full Yr. Full Yr. Full Yr.
1 Arroyo Grande 286 7% 427 11% 291 8% 1,004 8.39%
2 Atascadero 476 12% 600 15% 643 17% 1,719 14.37%
3 Grover Beach 167 4% 142 4% 135 4% 444 3.71%
4 Morro Bay 126 3% 143 4% 118 3% 387 3.23%
5 Paso Robles 724 18% 734 18% 792 21% 2,250 18.81%
6 Pismo Beach 57 1% 61 2% 54 1% 172 1.44%
7
San Luis
Obispo 482 12% 486 12% 479 12% 1,447 12.09%
99 Unincorporated 1,745 43% 1,464 36% 1,332 35% 4,541 37.96%
4,063 4,057 3,844 11,964 100.00%
Packet Pg. 227
8
Page 12 of 12
EXHIBIT D
Packet Pg. 228
8
Animal Services ShelterDerek Johnson, Assistant City ManagerVictoria Tonikian, Administration InternCity Council MeetingFebruary 7, 20171
RecommendationAuthorize the Mayor to execute a Memorandum of Agreement with the County of San Luis Obispo and the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Pismo Beach and Paso Robles to jointly finance and construct the replacement of an animal services shelter. 2
BackgroundThe County Animal Services Division (“Division”) provides animal field services/ care and shelter throughout the unincorporated regions of the county, as well as within each of the seven incorporated communities. The City’s current contract for these services expires in July 2020 and costs $146,307, which is included in the Police Department’s budget for 2016-2017.3
Existing ShelterThe Division operates a single animal shelter located at 885 Oklahoma Avenue in San Luis Obispo and is the county’s only open intake animal shelter, receiving approximately 4,500 animals annually. The Animal Services shelter was constructed in 1975 and many of the shelter’s original design features and characteristics are now outdated or inconsistent with the current understanding of humane animal sheltering. 4
Proposed ShelterA new 15,000 square foot facility (approximate) to fully address the facility needs and implement many of the recommendations contained in the Humane Society of the United States and the SPA report (Attachment B-Council Reading File). The fiscal impact to the City of San Luis Obispo would amount to approximately $100,000-$130,000/ year over the next 25 years.5
RecommendationStaff is recommending the approval of the Memorandum of Agreement as it provides a mechanism to:1.Share costs based on proportionate use2.Clarifies service and shelter governance, and3.Contains mechanisms to control construction costs and is a most efficient way to construct a shelter consistent with state law and local service preferences and standards.6