Laserfiche WebLink
7.1.B. - Page 2 <br /> reviewed by a working group of County managers, the San Mateo County City <br /> Manager's Association (SMCCMA) and other interested city participants. The SMCCMA <br /> represented city interests during the discussions between the County and PHS as the <br /> agreement terms were negotiated. <br /> ANALYSIS <br /> The key provisions of the proposed agreement are summarized below. <br /> Term: The agreement's five-year term commences on July 1, 2015 and runs through <br /> June 30, 2020. <br /> Total Cost: Under the current agreement, the total cost of the PHS contract in 2014-15 <br /> is $5,944,135 to provide the 21 jurisdictions with field enforcement, impounding, <br /> sheltering, pick up of deceased animals and other services. For the first year of the <br /> proposed agreement (2015-16), there will be no (0%) cost increase. Over the remaining <br /> four years of the agreement, the cost increases will be 3%, 2.5%, 3% and 2.5% per <br /> year. <br /> The cost for animal control services also includes reimbursement to the County for its <br /> services in administering the animal control contract and providing other related <br /> services. Charges are based on actual County expenditures and are estimated to be <br /> $420,000 in 2015-16 and to grow no more than 3% per year thereafter. <br /> The method of allocating total animal control service costs across the participating <br /> jurisdictions is described below. For 2014-15, the City of Redwood City's share of the <br /> cost is 12.55% (the second largest among the jurisdictions), resulting in a payment of <br /> $678,663. Redwood City's 2015-16 allocation is 12.48% and our estimated payment is <br /> $680,982. <br /> Cost Allocation Methodology: Costs for animal control services are allocated to the <br /> participating agencies based on a three-year weighted average of each agency's use of <br /> services, with an adjustment made to net out the revenue from animal licensing and <br /> vaccinations. The weighting considers use of both "field services," such as response to <br /> calls related to stray animals, animal attacks and dead animal removal and "sheltering <br /> services," which include impounding, housing and medical care of stray and <br /> surrendered animals. <br /> The proposed Agreement includes two changes to this allocation methodology. First the <br /> factors for weighting each agency's use of services have been changed from 27% field <br /> services/73% shelter services to 49% field services/51% shelter services. This <br /> adjustment was proposed by the negotiating team because it more accurately captures <br /> the relative cost of providing each type of service, whereas the prior method was based <br /> primarily on activity in accordance with an outdated consultant study. <br /> The second change in allocation method is how vaccination and licensing revenues are <br /> treated as an offset to cost. Historically, these revenues for the county as a whole have <br />