HomeMy WebLinkAboutItems Submitted at the Meeting � L��-�� -�-� y'/G/.i
f-� C:,�.-,,,��
September 6,2011
Attached is a Staff.lnitial Review of the Aubum Valley Humane 5ociery(AVHS) proposal from King
Countyforyourinfortnation.
As you can see, most of the items listed on tfieir review have been addressed in my submission of .
information regarding the comparison of the.King County con4rect for services versus the proposal from
AVHS.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Respectfully,
�
renda Heineman
Director of Human Resources/
Risk and Property Management
September 2,2011 /
Draft(discussion purposes only)—Staff Initial Review of AVHS proposal
Final dreft analyses to be completed by September 15, 2011
Costs:
Caoital nroiect continaencies—How is contingency covered; although it depends on several factors,and
unless the�e are no unknown fac[ors or associated risks,a contingency of 15-2096 would be something
to wnsidec
Buildina maintenance—How is Building Mainienance estimated/budgeted? Not apparentin AVHS
proposal. Maintenance needs are more intensive than most otheractivities the City is involved with—
cleaning solutions cause rust,drains need regular cleaning to remove pet hair,24/7 air handling is more
intensive There are both short-term maintenance and long term (major)maintenance considerations
that should be considered.
ACO—Vehicle: King County recently went out to bid for replacement animal truck boxes to frt on new
and existing enimal control trucks. The cost fora box alone is$35,000..A new truck chassis is$25,000
or more,depending on options.
Revenues:
license Revenues-Licensing revenues are based on the highest 6 moMhs of activity—which is
optimistic in the long run. If the estimates turn out to be overly optimistic,consideretion shouldbe
given as to how the revenue deficit will be address. Contrected licensine services- RASKCprovides a
three step (reminder—notice—late notice)process for renewals. Experience has shown that a simple
reminder is inadequate for renewals—resulting in fewer renewals and less revenues. Auburn has
invested significarrtly in an effort to increase licensing revenue. In order to offset licensing attrition due
_ _
to people moving,pets dying, etc,the wrrent level of effort wauld likely need to be sustained.
Mticipating an increase, particularly a sustainable inaease,would likely require greater effort and
increased expense.
Services:
• Hours of ooeration -RASKC provides 71.5 hours of customer service a week. AVHS is providing
24 hours as the minimum under contrect. While fewer hours may work,there are some
poteniial impacts to be mindful of: Fewer hours maymake it more diffcult for peopie to claim
- - - or-adopt-animals,- - - -
• Assumptions about length of stay may be impacted
• Increased length of stay may create more stress on the animals,
• Potential to increase the animals susceptibility to illnessand disease.
Open shelters must be prepared to handle disease and illness.
Ca aci -With reduced hours of operation,the average length of stay will likely be longer. This has
impiications for capacity—both in terms of staffing needed to provide humane pre and the number of
kennel units. There is also a seasonality associated with intakes—which will further impact capacity..
i/2
• September2,2031
Draft`(discussion purposes only)—Staff Initial Review of AVHS proposal
Final draft analyses to be completed by September 15,2011
Services not ineluded_in proposal: ,
Crueltv Investi¢ations-Aubum had 47 cails regarding cruelty in the year endingJuly 1,2011. This
equates to almost one cruelty case per week. During this same period there were 30 follow-up'activities
that took place on both these and prior cases. In Auburn;64%of cruelty cases require some level of
follow-up after an initial field investigation.
Aooeals-Appeals with RASKC are made to the Board of Appeals—with a Sergeant arguing the case—
often without the need for legal representation. Witha field progrem in Aubum,appealswould go to
Auburn Municipal Court,which will inc�ease caseloads in a mandated ser4ice that requires general fund
subsidies: Increasing caseloads might.also cause police officers 4o spend more time in court at
additional expense. Proseating these cases would take theAnimal Control Officer off the street—not
serving the community. There would inevitably be more prosecution support needed as well.
Public Oisdosure Reauests-Animal issues are emotional and often result in publit disclosure requesu. .
This cost is something that the City will need to provide—at an added cost or impact to existing service
levels.
Vawfion Contad Information-RASKC provides the ability for owners to provide conWct information for
pets being cared for by otherswhen ownersare on vacation. Thisadded service reduces intakes and
time needed to serve the community.
Weekend/EveninaNacation/Sick Covereee-RASKC provides a response 24/7/365 to high priority calis.
With a single Animal Control Officer model,planning should include what to do when the o�cef is not
aJailabie. '
Contract Performance
Other Citv's Exueriences-Burien, Des Moinesand Federal Way have all had mixed success in providing
animal control services: All haye found itto cost more than they anticipated. Many have had issues
providing comparable services.
Euthanasia Rate-RASKChas one of the lowest euthanasia retes in,the country, particularly for an open-
_ _ _ _ admission public shelter-with less than 15%ofall intakes-�equiring euthanasia._RASKC does not _ _ _ _ . _
euthanize:adoptable animals. AVHS is stating a goal to not eufhanize adoptable animals either-if this is
an ag�eed upon goal,the city may want to consider including it as a perFortnance requirement in the
contract.
—Generel Contin¢encies: What happens if AVHS has probiems—inaeases in wsts-or re4enues fall
short of forecasts7 While this may not happen,these are questions one may want to consider when
contemplating a change in shelter service providers. If the AVHS is not successful,would the ciry be
prepared operate the shelter?--Would theshelter funding model change in a City operated shelter?
2/2
>
Preliminary 2012 Estimated"Control"Cost Allocation
W/O Enhanced
Jurisdiction Servicesl W/Enhanced Services
� Enhanced
Services
Allocation AllocationZ r(1.0 FTE) _ Total
_
City of Auburn $ 157,786 5 87,945 $ 120,819 $ 208;764 ;
Uninwrporated King County $ 135,969 5 172,390 $ - $ 172,390
OtherJurisdic[lons(D'atrict 260) $ 129,939 5 163,359 $ - $ 163,359
Distrid 260 Total $ 423,694 $ 423,694. $ 120,819 $ 544,513
1 Based on the August 1,2011 Preliminary 2012 Estimated PaymentCalculationNotffication
Z Assumes 95%of calls would be handled by Enhanced Services Officer,reduang the number of
Calls Received in thegeneral allowtion of Control costs. .
Note: For prelimfnary impact analysis only. Does not include appflcation of the Suppor[Cost
, Adjustmeot Factor set forth in the ILA.
9/2/2031
' ���,�-.v .�-"--� 5'���•�
�: j=...�.r,a...r,._; C�-�,..,..:��
ORDINANCE NO. xgxx
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,WASHINGTON,
ESTABLISHING A TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DI$TRICT WITHIN THE CORPORATE
LIMTTS OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,SPECIFYING THE MAINTENANCE AND
PRESERVATION OF EXISTING TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS,PROVIDING FOR
ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS AND AMENDING THE AUBURN
MUNICIPAL CODE TO ENACT A NEW CHAPTER IN TITLE 3 OF THE CITY CODE
ENTITLED "AUBURN TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT".
WHEREAS,the City of Auburn has responsibility,to the extent of its resources, for the
improvement, maintenance,and protection of public ways within the corporate limits of the City; and
WHEREAS,the improvement, maintenance, and protection and operation of public ways requires
prodiding necessary transportarion improvements and preserving existing transportation improvemenu to
avoid catastrophic failure of the improvemetrts which would require significant additional funds to
reconstruct,as well as their gradual deterioration; and
WHEREAS,the number one priority in the"Washington Transportation Plan for 2007-2026"
adopted by the Washington Transportation Commission ("State Transportation Plan") is to preserve and
extend prior investments in existing transportation facilities and the services they provide to people and
commerce; and
WHEREAS, the State Transportation Plan identifies that there is no more fundamental
transportation investment than existing system preservation—keeping the physical infrastructure in safe
and efficient operating condition; and
WHEREAS,the investment principles from the Puget Sound Regional Council "Destination 2030
Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Cenual Puget Sound Region"states that the first priority should
be to maintain,preserve,make safe and optimize existing transportation infrastructure and services; and
WHEREAS,the City has limited transportation funding to pay for necessary transportation
preservation and maintenance; and
WHEREAS, the funding dedicated for thepreservatiorrand maintenance of the City's
transportation infrastructure has been di�amatically reduced in recentyears due to the action of several
statewide initiatives,however, the ongoing annual costs to preserve and maintain the City's
transportation infrastructure continue to rise making it difficult for the City to sufficiently address these
issnes; and
WHEREAS,the City des'ves to unprove iu modal connectivity to facilitate better overall
uanspoRation within the City of Auburn; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 36.73 RC W provides for the establisliment of transportation benefit districts
and for tNe levying of additional revenue sources for transportation improvements within the District that
are consistent with existing state, regional and local transportation plans and necessitated by existing or
_ reasonably foreseeable congestion levels; and
WHEREAS,RCW 35.2,1.225 authorizes the City Council to establish a Transportation BeneSt
District subject to the provisions of Chapter 36.73 RCW; and
WHEREAS,the City desires to form a Trarisportation Benefit District wfiich includes the entire
, City of Auburn as the boundaries currently exist or aze hereafter expanded due to annexation;and
WHEREAS,the City, after giving proper notice, conducted a public hearing on September x,x�
' and look pyblic comment regazding the proposed establishment of a Transportation Benefit District in
accordance with RCW 36.73.050; and
NOW THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION L Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to establish a Transportation Benefit District
pursuantto RCW 35.21.255 and 36.73 RCW.
SECTION 2. Findings.
The City Council finds it is in thepublic interest to form a Transportation Benefit District to
p'rovide adequate levels of funding for transportation improvemenu that aze consistent with existing
state;regional and local ffansportation plans and are necessitated by existing or reasonably foreseeable
congestion levels, as provided in Chapter 36.73 RCW.
The City Council further finds that it is in the public interest to provide for transportation .
improvements that improve modal connectiviry and that protect the Ciry's long term investments in iu
infrastructure; reduce the risk of transportation facility failure, improve safety,continue optimal
p'erfocmance of the infrastructure over time, and avoid more expensive infrastructure replacements:in the
future. '
Tlie City,Council further finds that the City's six-year(2011-2016)TranspoRation Improvement
Program shall be annually updated to identify projecu that constitute transportation improvements that
may be funded by the TBD (collectively the"TBD Projects")as funding becomes available.
The City Council further finds that annually recurring projects listed under"Pavement
PreservationPrograms" within the City's Six-Yeaz Transportation Improvement Program constitute
transportation improvements and shall be"TBD Projects," until such time.as the Ciry obtains a �
sustainable level of service for Arterial pavement condition index (PCI) of 70 for eacfi street segment
within the City's Arterial Street System.
SECTION 3. A new chapter, Chapter 3.23 of the Aubum Municipal Code entitled"Transportation
Benefit District," is hereby created to read as follows:
Chapter 3.23 Transportation Benefit District
_ 3.23.010 Transportation Benefit District Established.
There is created a Vansportation benefit district to be known as the Auburn Transportation
Benefit District or"DistricY'with geographical boundazies comprised of the corporate limits of ttie City
as they currently exist oras they may exist following future annexations.
I 3.23.020 Governing Board.
(A)The governing board of the Transportation Benefit District shall be the Auburn Ciry Council acting . _
in an ex officio and independent capacity,which shall have the authority to exercise the statutory powers
set forth in Chapter 36.73 RCW.
(B)Meetings of the TBD Boazd shall be governed by the procedural rules app(icabfe to meetings of the
Ciry Council, as these rules may be amended by the City Council from time to time. TBD Boazd actions
shall be taken in the same manner and follow the same procedure as,for the adoption of City Council
resolutions. Meetings of the TBD Board shall,whenever possible,take place on the same dates
scheduled for City Council meetings.
(C)7'he Mayor shall serve as the chair of the TBD Boazd and shall preside over all meetings of the TBD
Board.
(D)Auburn City Attorney will serve as legal advisor to the TBD Board, except where separate counsel is
engaged by the TBD or the City Attomey has a conflict of interest
(E)7'he ueasurer of the Transportation Benefit District shall be the City Financial Services Director.
(F)The Board shall develop a material change policy to address major plari changes that affect project
delivery or the ability to finance the plan,pursuant to the requirements set forth in RCW 36.73.160(I).
(G)The Board shall issue an annual report,pursuant to the requiremenu of RCW 36.73.]60(2).
(H)The Board may authorize an Advisory Committee, consisting of up to seven(7)ciry residents who
are stakeholders in the city's arterial system,to advise the Board as requested on matters relating to
project priorities and material changes. Advisory Member candidates shall be nominated by the Mayor
and confirmed by the Board.
3.23.030 Authority of the District.
The Board shall have and may exercise any powers provided by law to fulfill the purpose of the
District.
3.23.040 Use of Funds.
The funds generated by the Transportation Benefit District may be used for any purpose allowed
by law including to operate the Disuict and to make transportation improvements that are consistent with
existing state, regional, and local transportation plans and necessitated by existing or reasonably
foreseeable congestion levels pursuant to Chapter 36.73 RCW. The transportation improvements funded
by the district shall be made in an effort to protect the City's long term investments in its infrasiructure, .
to reduce the risk of transportation facility failure,to improve safety,to continue optimal performance of
the infrastructure over time,to avoid more expensive infrastructure replacemenu in the future and to
improve modal connectivity within the City of Auburn. Additional transportation improvement projects
of the dishtict may be funded only after compliance with the provisions of RC W 36.73.050(2).
3.23.050 Dissolution of District.
The Transportation Benefit District shall be automatically dissolved, pursuant to the procedures
set forth in chapter 36.73 RCW, when all indebtedness of the district has been retired and when all of the
DistricYs anticipated responsibilities have kieen satisfied...
3.23.060 Liberal Construction.
As authorized pursuant to Chapter 36.73 RCW, this chapter shall be liberally construed to permit
the accomplishment of its purposes.
-
SECTION 4. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections,or sentences of this ordinance are
held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining poRion
of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect.
/
SECTION S. Effective Date..This ordinance shall take effect andbe in force ten(10)days from and after
_ _
, its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
, PASSED by the City Council the ?th day of October, 2011
i
,