Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-24-2017 Item 12 - Consider Actions Related to the Animal Services Shelter AgreementMeeting Date: 10/24/2017 FROM: Derek Johnson, City Manager Prepared By: Greg Hermann, Acting Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: CONSIDER ACTIONS RELATED TO THE ANIMAL SERVICES SHELTER AGREEMENT RECOMMENDATION Receive a report on the regional effort to build an animal services shelter and consider actions related to the potential withdrawal of other participating cities from the joint agreement to finance and construct a replacement animal services shelter. DISCUSSION Under state law, incorporated cities must provide their own animal services or contract for those services. Currently, all seven incorporated cities in San Luis Obispo County contract with the County for these services. 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 those functions. The current shelter, built in 1975, no longer meets current industry standards and in 2015 the Board of Supervisors determined that a new facility was necessary. At the Council Meeting held on February 7th, 2017, staff presented a report with the recommendation to authorize an agreement with the County of San Luis Obispo and the other incorporated cities in the county to jointly finance and construct a replacement animal services shelter. This agreement was approved and signed, but subsequently the cities of Paso Robles and Atascadero have indicated interest in considering alternatives to a county-wide shelter. The agreement would apportion 12.09% of the estimated total maximum cost of $14.5 million to the City (approximately $100,000-$130,000 / year over the next 25 years with the first year estimated at $146,000 for the finance and construction of the facility) in addition to the City’s proportional share of $176,033 for field services. Should other cities withdraw, the proportionate use attributed to the City would increase along with the project costs. In addition, the deadline to withdraw from the agreement is prior to October 31, 2017. Both Paso Robles and Atascadero have scheduled special meetings on the afternoon of October 30, 2017 to consider an alternative proposal to provide both field services and to build, construct and operate an animal services shelter. The analysis of that proposal will be completed on October 25 and the staff reports for both cities will not be released until October 27. Should Packet Pg 273 12 these cities withdraw, the estimated annual cost increase for the City of San Luis Obispo for the construction of the facility could increase approximately by $50,000-$60,000 per year. Staff is currently analyzing alternative approaches to providing these services. This information will be distributed as correspondence in advance of the October 24, 2017 City Council meeting. Staff will be prepared to make a recommendation at that meeting in response to the analysis of alternative service options compared to the projected cost increases should Paso Robles and Atascadero withdraw from the project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This action is not subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 (Definitions – Project). FISCAL IMPACT The City has currently budgeted for both the ongoing costs as well as the costs of construction and financing of a new shelter. Staff is currently analyzing the additional costs that would be incurred should Atascadero and/or Paso Robles withdraw from the agreement. Should they withdraw, it is estimated that annual capital service costs would increase by $50,000-$60,000 per year. Staff is also analyzing the costs of alternative approaches to providing these services. This information will be used to form a recommendation on the most cost-effective approach for the City while also considering service levels to the public. ALTERNATIVES 1.Provide alternative direction. The City Council should provide clear direction about alternative approaches to the issue. Packet Pg 274 12 Animal Services ShelterDerek Johnson, City ManagerOctober 24, 20171 Recommendation1.Continue participation in the joint animal services shelter agreement should the cities of Atascadero and Paso Robles withdraw. 2.Authorize the City Manager to take other actions up to and including withdrawing from the agreement should other Cities withdraw from the agreement. 3.Authorize the Mayor to send a letter to the cities of Atascadero and Paso Robles regarding the impacts of the City should they withdraw from the agreement.2 Background1.Under state law, incorporated cities must provide their own animal services or contract for those services.2.Currently, all seven incorporated cities in San Luis Obispo County contract with the County for these services. 3.Each city contracting with the County 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 those functions.3 Fiscal ImpactThe City’s current proportional share for field services is $176,033.CurrentThe agreement would apportion 12.09% of the estimated total maximum cost of $14.5 million to the City (approximately $100,000-$130,000 / year over the next 25 years with the first year estimated at $146,000 for the finance and construction of the facility.With the agreementThe estimated annual cost increase for the City of San Luis Obispo for the construction of the facility could increase by approximately $40,000-$50,000 annually for 30 years. Should other cities withdraw4 Fiscal Breakdown With All Cities Included5 Fiscal Breakdown with the Cities of Atascadero and Paso Robles withdrawn6 Fiscal Impact1.The City has currently budgeted for both the ongoing costs as well as the costs of construction and financing of a new shelter.2.Staff is also analyzing the costs of alternative approaches to providing these services. 7 Alternatives1.No immediate service delivery alternatives exist and no immediate viable options have been identified by staff. 8 Recommendation1.Continue participation in the joint animal services shelter agreement should the cities of Atascadero and Paso Robles withdraw. 2.Authorize the City Manager to take other actions up to and including withdrawing from the agreement should other Cities withdraw from the agreement. 3.Authorize the Mayor to send a letter to the cities of Atascadero and Paso Robles regarding the impacts of the City should they withdraw from the agreement.9