HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 ANIMAL CNTL-SHEL 10-21-02AGENDA REPORT
NO. '12
10-21-02
. . ' 400-70 ~
MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 21, 2002 R = 5 ~
TO:
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM:
RONALD A. NAULT, FINANCE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT:
ANIMAL CONTROL/SHELTER CONTRACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003
SUMMARY:
The City Council is requested to approve the Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Animal Control/Shelter
contract with the Orange County Health Agency in the provisional amount of $127,956.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Authorize the Mayor to sign the Animal Control/Shelter agreement for Fiscal Year
2002-2003 in the amount of $127,956.
2. Appropriate $48,000 from the Unappropriated Fund Balance of the General Fund to
line item 01-801-6920, Animal Control - County Contract.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The 2002-2003 Budget approved on August 5, 2002 includes $80,000 that was estimated for
Animal. Control services for the fiscal year. The actual contract of $127,956 will require an
additional appropriation of $48,000.
BACKGROUND:
The City has historically contracted with the County of Orange to provide Animal Control and
Shelter Services. During fiscal 1989-1990 the City of Tustin and other contract Cities met with
the County to negotiate a new methodology of allocating costs. The revised method utilizes a
current budget estimate, or provisional payment, net of prior period adjustments generated from
year end accounting records. One prior year actual and one prior year estimate are adjusted
against the current year's estimate to arrive at the new current contract cost. This methodology
was intended to smooth out the peaks and valleys from year to year as prior year actuals are
reconciled against the previous year's estimated actual.
DISCUSSION:
The original estimate of $80,000 for the 2002-2003 contract cost was a verbal estimate received
from County Animal Control staff, based on Tustin's provisional cost of $106,000 for fiscal
2001-2002. The County clarified that they did not take into consideration any credit or debit
adjustments for 2001-2002 we would receive that would net against the provisional estimate.
Please see Attachment E for the County breakdown of the annual budget and Tustin's
proportional share. Column #3 is the base budget allocated for 2002-03 to the member
agencies. The allocation is based on the average adjusted budget share for the prior three
years. Columns #1 and #2 are the adjusted share based on the previous second quarter cost
study, and Column ~4 is the City's share of the adjusted net field services, special services and
shelter services for fiscal 2000-01. Column #6 is the final cost to the City for the current year
net of the actual adjustments from Columns #2 and ~,.
The provisional 2002-2003 Animal Control/Shelter contract cost of $127,956 is an increase of
$50,000 from the 2001-2002 contract of $78,000. For fiscal 2002-2003 the total Animal Care
Services budget will increase by $237,171: personnel costs are estimated to increase by
$84,000 and services and supplies by $154,000. Tustin is allocated 3.2% of the base budget
for fiscal 2002-2003.
I have spent a considerable amount of time with Hal Maloney, Deputy Director of Animal
Services for the County, to try and identify why Tustin is looking at such a large increase for this
year. Comparing expenses from prior years, it appears that while Tustin's revenues and
expenditures are relatively flat, other agencies' expenses have gone down. This causes
Tustin's allocated share of expenses to go up slightly so that we are assuming a larger portion
of fixed costs. A review of Attachment C clearly shows that Tustin's Field Services expense,
Columns #1, #2 and #3, exceeds the revenue generated by $127,000. (Field Services includes
calls regarding stray or dead animals, and calls regarding urban wildlife.) Even when taking the
provisional increase for the current year into consideration, the use of County Animal Control
Services remains cost effective for the City.
Ronald A. Nault
Finance Director
Attachments
RAN:AnimalControl2002StaffReport.doc
COUNTY OF ORANGE
HEALTH CARE AGENCY
REGULATORY HEALTH SERVICES
ANIMAL CARE SERVICES
Ercelh'nce
Set' ce
August 1, 2002
City of Tustin
William A. Huston, CRy Manager
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
JULIETTE A. POULSON, RN, MN
DIRECTOR
MIKE SPURGEON
DEPUTY AGENCY DIRECTOR
REGULATORY HEALTH SERVICES
JULIE ANN RYAN JOHNSON, DVM
DIRECTOR
ANIMAL CARE SERVICES
MAILING ADDRESS:
561 THE CITY DRIVE SOUTH
ORANGE, CA 92868
TELEPHONE: (714) 935-6848
FAX: (714) 935-6373
Dear Mr. Huston,
Enclosed for your review is our annual provisional amount fiscal package. The multi-colored
schedules identify the FY 02-03 Provisional Contract Amounts included in the annual Master
Agreement which is scheduled for Board of Supervisor's approval on August 27, 2002.
The City of Tustin will have a FY 02-03 provisional amount of $128,742(see attachment E,
Column 3). Due to a prior year adjustment, (Column 4) your city will be billed $127,956
(Column 5).
In accordance with the actual use methodology developed and approved by contract cities, all
provisional amounts are driven by each city's and county's utilization and/or revenue changes
from year-to-year as well as relative to each other.
The contents of the multi-colored package were reviewed and approved at the July 18, 2002
meeting of the Financial/Operational Advisory Board made up of city managers appointed by the
Orange County City Managers Association.
I would like to emphasize that with the exception of FY 99-00 when a feline panleukopenia issue
occurred, the actual costs are usually less than the provisional amounts. Two fiscal years ago the
contract cities and county were asked to contain net costs at 4 million dollars. As shown in the
previously mailed FY 00/01 fourth quarter cost study, the actual contract city cost was $3.1
million due to unusually high vacancies resulting in $547,813 returned to the cities for the FY
00/01 period.
In FY 02-03, substantial gross cost increases in non-program controlled issues such as negotiated
cost of living adjustments, retirement, health insurance and other benefits have occurred. User
fee revenues have also increased to moderate general fund impacts on contract cries and the
county.
Letter to Cities - Provisional Contract Amounts
Page 2 of 2
Although actual year-to-year increases in program costs have been quite reasonable when
increases in population and inflation are considered, we are continuing to implement cost
efficiencies such as extending patrol vehicle life and using a mail Lockbox service to facilitate
license processing.
I am available at (714) 935-7012 to discuss options to mitigate your city's general fund costs.
Sincerely, /~
Hal Maloney
Assistant Director
cc: Julie Ann Ryan Johnson, DVM, Director, Orange County Animal Care Services
Mike Spurgeon, Deputy Agency Director, Regulatory Health Services
Nicole Shaverdi, Analyst, Program Support
0
0
!
0
0
0
0
I-
Z
LU
0
'-:. c,,i z
o
W
&
>..
>.
0
0
0
0
.0
I
o~ o4 o 0
~ co o
.
0 ~
n,, >.
(7) 1'-0
(.) Z I.-
'~1' ',~ 0 0
o'> .~- 0
~.o o. Z Z
0
0
0
,2.'
'o-2
ILl
0
I--
&
>-
!
>-
m-
IJ.I
o
>-
0
0
n~
0
l
0
0
Z
rd~ 0 0
~ ~ o
0 ~ 0
~ t"~l 0
~ 0 0
~ 0 0
0
0
'6'
>-
0
0
c~
0~i O~ 0 0
~0 ¢0 0
0
0
z
0
Z
C~
I.-
Z
0
Z
I-
z
IAJ
0
o~
.
·
0
0
Z
0
Z
~wz ~ ~ ~
~ ~ g°°°°°°°°°°°ooooooo°° ~ o o
g oooooooooooo~ooooo ~ o o
o ~
,, ,
0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~0~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~
z~> _ --
~ ~~>~ -- 0
0
o u..E
·
00 m
77.
Z
<
0
0
0
0
o) o ~ /2.
o o .-J
o t.-
.~8~- E
~ 0
0
0
0
0
Z
0
--
0
1:3
[:3
IAI
0 0
ZZ
ATTACHMENT F
COMPARISON OF CITY PROVISIONAL PAYMENT AMOUNT*
FY FY 2001-02 AND FY 2002-03
#1 #2 #3 #4
FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 AMOUNT OF
CITY CITY CHANGE
PROVISIONAL PROVISIONAL: FY 2001-02
PAYMENT PAYMENT TO PERCENT
CITY AMOUNT AMOUNT FY 2002-03 CHANGE
(Col 2 - Col 1)
ANAHEI.M~i.:;:::::.;.:.i: :,:,::.:,!.:.~,~::': ::'.$805,711: '1: ::~: ''$819i945 : : ' $14~234 ':i?': '1''77%
ALISO VIE JO** $0 $69,717 $69,717 0'00%
B~EA!" ; : .::.': .' ::! 62'999' ; : ..:' 68't87:..::'r''':'';::' '::'!'5,188. . :'::.':
CYPRESS $117,213 $12S,272 11,05e 9.43°/0
FOUiNTAI:Ni!VA:LEEY!'.'i!: i.:::i~1:20,9461 ::i !: 1:37;603 :' 16;657 : :' 13,~%
· : . .... :.:.:. · , . : ,: :.: , . , . :::
FULLERTON $346,398 $363,323 16,925 4.890/0
G~'DE:NiGR:.0VE :i! ilii': :: ':~]::. :!:.::::: ~/i!i1460,.603: '!:::ii..:'.:' :'.i:?'485;897 :i :.:..:::.:.' i'i:::-:'.' :'" '25.i294'' ': :~::~:i:::.-
· '- -"" ',',,:" '::-:':. ,..:-..: .. -: ..: · . ..-. :4 :"-':' ':.':. ' .: :... ::" ' ::::':: :".: · ": ':' . '"'; ·:" .: ~ ,:i.: ' ' · '..:::'i:" .'? ,, · 'l'v.
HUNTING. BEACH $416,379 $457,130 40,751 9.79%
i~iPALMAii:i:ii~:::.:'.:~ ::~::i :.: ii:' :.'i::."i:::!:::. li9,~3:: il !:.:i .23,4~4 :: i 4,151 21,55~/.
...... . · ::.:.. , . . ., ,... ...~, . :.:... .. ,, , :, ~ .:: .' . ..., . , ,
LAGUNA HILLS $56,316 $60,283 3,967 7.04%
i::::.-' :KE:FOREST:~:::::::i!?i: :.::. $84'251: i $93~869 ' ~ 9'618 11i42%
· ..... :.. ::: ... . .:: . . ,, . ..: : . .: .......: ..... :.. . ....- .:. .:.......:.. -: . ::: ~: ::::...:..:.
ORANGE $344,922 $376,397 31,475 9.13%
p.~CENTIA:i!i:::::::::::ii~::ii! i:::. ::..:i:::.: :::92,304 :i'.:: 90,1170' : : - (2,134) :,2:~31%
RCHO. SANTA. MARG. $35,076 $46,370 11,294 32.20%
.SAN!~UANCAP:,i~i!ii.!i:. :~::.:~:::::~ii i:~ 51,7871 .:ii..:::'- .:51,732~ · ;" : {55) : '0~1:1~°:
.:: ::.::::: . : ..... . - , . ........ : :.,....-....- .. :..:. :.:-.. :.::..:..::. ::':::::...-.. ,. . .:.:.:: :::::::::::::::::::::::: .:..:.::::.:.:.-.::.,
STANTON $76,189 $79,616 3,427 4.50%:
TUST:iN i~::::~i:i:::::i:,i: ~,ii::i~-:~i:::.': ':'..::'~:i:::.': i':i06:',490 ~:~ :.. ::,i'28;742.: ':: ~;252 20!90%:
ViELA P~RK' .... $g,7'40 $g,401 ........ (339)'': .................. :3'?8%
!~0RBA'.EINDA!~ii:? ?ri~: !i::.::i: !~ ? i i ~..: .:::.i ::.:.41 ;328" :¥: ::: :':' ":':':60;285 ': ~....':;.~:' r.::.. :~i:8;957.:. ~ ~-:.~:~:~ ~::~4s:~ 87o,
LA HABRA $53,065 $59,877 6,812 12.84°/0
.... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::-,.39:~
CONTRACT
CITY TOTAL $3,378,814 $3,692,263 $313,449 9.28%
UNINCORPORATED
COUNTY TOTAL** $387,172 $310,894 (76,278) -19.70%
TOTAL :$;3,765,986 $;4,003,157 $237,171 6.30%
*Amounts in columns 1 and 2 reflect the estimated costs for the fiscal year based on
the requested budget (before any prior year adjustments are added).
** Aliso Viejo tmnsifioned from unincorporated total to Contract City in 02/03.
EST 2002-03 CITY COSTS / Analysis 5/30/01