HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (653) AGENDA
ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION
April 14, 2010
ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE
STUDY SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. Presentation of Animal Licensing Feasibility Study
2. Review of Historic Preservation Commission Inventory of Cultural Resources
3. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS (The Council may bring forth general topics for future meeting
agendas. Council may not discuss, deliberate or take any action on the topics presented
pursuant to ARS 38-431.02H)
ADJOURNMENT
POSTED: 04/07/10
3:30 p.m.
rg
When possible, a packet of agenda materials as listed above is available for public inspection at least 24
hours prior to the Council meeting in the office of the Town Clerk between the hours of 8:00 a.m. — 5:00
p.m.
The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If any person with a
disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify the Town Clerk's Office at least five days prior
to the Council meeting at 229-4700.
TOWN OF CRC VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL
CC-52 Item #: 1.
TC Study Session
Date: 04/14/2010
Requested by: Mary Davis, Communications Administrator
Submitted By: Mary Davis, Town Manager Department
Department: Town Manager Department
Information
SUBJECT:
Presentation of Animal Licensing Feasibility Study
SUMMARY:
In June 2009, Town Council approved an appropriation in the amount of$10,000 to conduct an Animal
Licensing Feasibility Study. The Scope of Work called for the study to examine the purpose and goals of
the licensing and care program and its potential for becoming self-supporting beyond an annual base
contribution from the Town. Specific analysis included:
--Updated assessment on Oro Valley's dog population
--The level of service the program will provide. A menu of service levels including recommendations on
appropriate technologies and approaches
--A description of program focus: licensing or control.
--Comparison to a possible Humane Society program (and the Pima Animal Care Center specifically)
--Other operational goals and challenges that should be considered
--Assessment of resources to manage and deliver the program (staff, vehicles, etc.)
--Program costs and possible revenue sources
--Program's operational structure
Ed Boks, an independent consultant with extensive experience in the animal licensing and control field,
was selected to conduct the study and will present his draft report to Council for review and
consideration.
DISCUSSION:
The study focuses on the Town of Oro Valley assuming responsibility for dog licensing within
jurisdictional limits. Currently, dog licensing is administered by Pima County Animal Care Center
(PACC). We will pay $3,831 in fees to PACC for FY 2008/09. A copy of the current IGA is provided with
this Communication for Council review.
According to figures gathered for the study, PACC sold 4,044 dog licenses in Oro Valley in calendar year
2009. This represents a dog license compliance rate of about 27.9%; the national average is 28%. The
study estimates that Oro Valley has a dog population of about 14,468, which means over 70% of Oro
Valley's resident dogs are not licensed.
Mr. Boks will outline the formula that establishes these baselines, and will discuss his findings as to how
Oro Valley can take advantage of opportunities to assume responsibility for managing and implementing
a program to increase compliance and capture additional revenue.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Costs vary depending on the type of program preferred.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION:
The presentation tonight brings the results of the study to Council. Staff has no recommendation at this
time but is looking for guidance through the Council's discussion.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
None
:
Attachments
Link: Animal Licensing Study
Link: PACC IGA
1
.4'., : • i 4110‘.
. .
.a,'tr 4101100.
11..,
4A,V
,‘
it a law **111)
,-
'T.
IF
.I, ....,
'V**
. ,--,, ..,.... ........ ,
. .
0
am_ ,
,
t ..
v"....
•.,.,,,'' ,
Town of Oro Valley
Dog License Program
Feasibility Study
.,
3/24/2010
By
Ed Boks
41.
if
'No, It iirti,„.„-', -' - -,.,, - -' .'=,:',.-i4;0'.:'',-.... , '• ' ''1-
-,'"'"
I - -„,,, :,, ..•..,:,,,,i., -, ,, ''
-
. .,.
' ..#
i,.. 4. , * . 441.4#.• $7.7* , -* *f*.: ,,, :4
-.1.
.''''' '
0
. :
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 5
Purpose of this Study 7
Stakeholders and Contributors 7
Current Status of Oro Valley Animal Control and Licensing 7
Two Staff Proposed Program Models 8
Model 1: Contract with Veterinarians 8
Lessons Learned from Maricopa County 8
The PACC Experience 9
Oro Valley Veterinarian Survey 10
Model 2: Town Hall to Sell Licenses 11
Staff Assumption: Oro Valley Dog Population 11
Spay/Neuter Programs 12
Landlord and Property Management Restrictions 12
Program Management and Policy 14
Modified Oro Valley Dog Population Estimate 18
Staff Assumption: Potential Revenue 19
Oro Valley Dog License Compliance Rate 21
Existing Revenue Sources 22
Potential Revenue Growth 23
Software Programs and Costs 25
Option One: MUNIS 25
Option Two: Chameleon 25
Option Three: Global Pet Search, Inc 27
Option Four: PetData® Services 27
Promotion and Canvassing Programs 30
Collections 33
Effective Penalties 33
Cost Savings 35
Streamline billing and payments and the renewal process 35
Integrate Licensing with Health, Safety and Welfare Goals 35
Multi-Year License 35
Wildlife 37
www.edboks.com 2
Owner Requested Euthanasia 37
Risks 38
FINDINGS 40
Focus and Purpose of Town Dog Licensing Program 45
Transition plan from the existing IGA to a Town-operated program 45
Supportive Plan of Expenditures 49
Proposed Budget 50
Addendums• 51
The Fountain Hills Model 51
The Calgary Model 52
Four Components of an Effective Dog Licensing Program 55
www.edboks.com 3
Reference Guide to Graphs and Tables
Graph One Oro Valley Human Population Growth 13
Graph Two PACC Activities in Oro Valley 13
Table One Affect of Fees on License Compliance and Kill Rates 14
Graph Three Pima County Dog Licenses Sold in 2009 14
Table Two Pima County Comparative Fees 15
Graph Four Oro Valley Dog License History 15
Graph Five Pima County Dog License History 16
Graph Six Los Angeles License History 17
Graph Seven National Survey Results on Number of Unaltered Dogs 19
Graph Eight Oro Valley Dog Licenses in 2009 19
Graph Nine Altered/Unaltered Dog License Ratios in Pima County 20
Graph Ten Tucson Dog Licenses in 2009 20
Graph Eleven Repeat of Graph Seven: National Survey Results 23
Table Three 2002 National Dog License Compliance Rate Survey 21
Table Four Classification/Compensation Comparison: License Clerk 21
Table Five Revenue Projections 24
Table Six Small Communities Outsourcing with PetData 28
Table Seven Communities Offering Multi-Year Licensing 36
GANNT Chart Execution Time Table 48
Table Eight Projected Human and Dog Populations 49
Table Nine Proposed Budget 50
www.edboks.com 4
Executive Summary
This Study examines the feasibility of the Town of Oro Valley assuming responsibility for
dog licensing within jurisdictional limits. Dog licensing is currently administered by Pima
County Animal Center (PACC). PACC sold 4,044 dog licenses in Oro Valley in Calendar
Year 2009. This represents a dog license compliance rate in Oro Valley of about 27.9%,
just shy of the U.S. national average of 28%. It is estimated that Oro Valley has a dog
population of about 14,468, which means over 70% of Oro Valley's resident dogs are not
licensed. However, over 10,000 of these dogs are probably spayed or neutered.
The question before the Council is whether the Town of Oro Valley can increase the local
license compliance rate and license revenue more effectively than PACC, - in a climate of
decreased staffing and budget levels while promoting more spay/neuter surgeries that
reduce revenue per license.
It is the finding of this Study that there does exist an opportunity for Oro Valley to increase
license revenue, the total number of licenses sold, and the percent of compliance within
Town limits, and that it is within the means of Town staff to do this provided they receive
the approval and support of the Town Council to proceed.
Assuming responsibility for managing dog licensing is consistent with Oro Valley's Mission
to govern efficiently, inclusively and responsively to promote community health, safety and
a sustainable quality of life. Licensing can be managed more efficiently and effectively at
the Town level, and greater numbers of Oro Valley dog owners can be registered in the
program. The licensing of more dogs is directly related to promoting community health,
safety and the quality of life. Most constituents today consider the family pet a member of
the family,1 and pets are increasingly included in community goals affecting health, safety
and welfare.2
Should the Town Council elect to assume responsibility for dog licensing, there are seven
characteristics3 that effective and successful licensing programs embrace that should be
incorporated into an Oro Valley Dog Licensing program. These characteristics are
consistent with Town Strategic Goals. They are:
1. Integration of dog licensing with Town health, safety and welfare goals and strategies
to establish licensing as a top priority;4
2. Elimination of barriers to licensing; providing ease and accessibility to dog owners;5
3. Software that allows flexibility and modifications as needed;6
1 According to a Human-Animal Bond Survey by The Hartz Mountain Corp. (Secaucus, N.J.) 75%of all pet owners consider their
pet part of the family.80%of them said they would risk their life to save a pet's life, and almost half(45 percent)take their pet on
family vacations.And nearly one in three dog owners(31 percent)would take their pet to work if they could.
2 The Federal Pet Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act of 2006 (PETS Act) requires local governments seeking funds
from FEMA for disaster preparedness to include provisions for family pets in their plans for evacuation and sheltering evacuees.
This is one example of how Americans today consider pets a part of the family. Town Goals from the 2009 Oro Valley Strategic
Plan will be cited as appropriate throughout this report.
3 Los Angeles Animal Services STUDY OF THE DOG LICENSING PROGRAM OCTOBER 2008: Over 200 agency programs were
reviewed during a previous license study overseen by consultant.
4 Dog licensing promotes community health, safety and welfare goals and strategies by ensuring dogs are vaccinated against
rabies, are not allowed to run at large where they can cause accidents and bites,etc.
5 Economic and Financial Sustainability Goal#4: Ensure financial resources are available with a supportable level of community
services.
6 Community Infrastructure Goal #6: Maintain a high-speed data network to meet information storage and data management
needs to provide timely and accurate information.
www.edboks.com 5
4. Sufficient budget funding for outreach and pubic information programs;?
5. Mandatory licensing with reasonable, affordable fees;8
6. Penalties sufficient to deter noncompliance;9 and
7. A strong commitment to the humane treatment of animals by both Town leaders and
elected officials.1°
Effective and successful licensing programs dedicate higher levels of support and
allocations of resources in these seven areas. These characteristics are discussed within
the body of this Study and recommended strategies for effectively and successfully
assuming the responsibility for dog licensing are explained herein.
The format of this report follows the outline and direction of the Town's Request for
Proposals (RFP). Using feedback from community stakeholders, two program models
proposed by staff are assessed, followed by the evaluation of two staff assumptions. This
leads to a revised calculation of the Oro Valley dog population estimate and the
determination of a realistic dog licensing compliance goal. Existing and potential revenue
sources are identified followed by a Transition Plan from the existing IGA with PACC to a
Town-operated program. A proposed budget plan is also included.
It has been a pleasure working with the staff of Oro Valley and all the stakeholders
involved. If I can be of further service, please don't hesitate to call on me.
Sincerely,
Edward Boks
Quality of Life Goal #6: Provide diverse educational, informational and recreational opportunities and Leadership and
Communication Goal#1: Build trust through effective public outreach and communication.
$ Community Infrastructure Goal #2: Plan for and provide the necessary infrastructure to support community growth and
reservation.
Quality of Life Goal#5:Maintain a safe community where residents feel secure.
10 Leadership and Communication Goal#1: Build trust through effective public outreach and communication.
www.edboks.com 6
Purpose of this Study
The purpose of this study is to assess the physical and financial resources required to
implement a dog licensing program in the Town of Oro Valley. Dog licensing is currently
managed at the County level. Information from this study may be used to guide Town
Council policy on dog licensing and management in the Town of Oro Valley. The format
of this study follows the format of the Town's Request for Proposals11 (RFP). Study
findings are posted throughout the report and are also listed in their entirety on page 40.
Stakeholders and Contributors
I want to thank all the stakeholders and contributors for their time and
cooperation and for the valuable information and insights they provided
to this study. I especially want to thank the following individuals for
their help:
Mayor Paul Loomis; Council Member Salette Latas; Police Chief
Daniel G. Sharp; Town Magistrate, George A. Dunscomb; Town
Attorney, Tobin Rosen; Town Prosecutor, Tobin C. Sidles; Town
Communications Administrator, Mary K. Davis; Finance Director, Stacey Lemos; Interim
Human Resources Manager, Joe Andrews; Procurement Administrator, Brian Garrity;
Planning and Zoning Special Projects Coordinator, Scott Nelson; Senior Office
Assistants, Tracy Gransie and Barbara Harnisch; Pima County Animal Care Center
Executive Director, Kim Janes, Business Operations Coordinator, Edward
Taczanowsky, License Program Manager, Jennifer Neustadter, Shelter Managers,
Jayne Cundy and Robert Hendrix; Pima County Classification and Compensation
Manager, Colin Smith; Humane Society of Southern Arizona Operations Manager, Pat
Hubbard; Animal Welfare Alliance of Southern Arizona representative, Teri White;
Foundation for Animals In Risk representative, Tami Barrett; Maricopa County License
Program Manager, Peter Martin; Maricopa County Enforcement and Budget Director
(retired) Martha Bern; Fountain Hills Finance Director, Julie Ghetti and Accounting
Supervisor, Mary Martin; Wickenburg Animal Control Officer, Jeanna Burch; Los
Angeles Animal Services License Program Manager, John Forland; Oro Valley
Apartment Management Companies and Condominium Association Managers; and Oro
Valley veterinarians.12
Current Status of Oro Valley Animal Control and Licensing
The Town of Oro Valley has an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Pima Animal
Care Center (PACC) for animal control and care services, including dog licensing.
Revenue PACC receives from the purchase of dog licenses by Oro Valley residents
serves as payment for these services. When service costs incurred by the Town exceed
the revenue from licenses, the Town uses money from the general fund to make up the
difference. In fiscal year 2007/2008, in addition to the $38,561 Pima County collected in
Oro Valley license fees, the Town paid $8,023 from the general fund, totaling $46,584
paid for all animal care and control services that year.13
11 Request for Proposal For Animal Licensing Program Feasibility Study issued by Mary Davis,Communications Administrator
12 Contact information on Oro Valley veterinarians, apartment and condominium management was provided by Town Planning
and Zoning Special Projects Coordinator,Scott Nelson and Communications Administrator, Mary Davis
13 Source:Request for Proposal For Animal Licensing Program Feasibility Study
www.edboks.com 7
Two Staff Proposed Program Models
The Town of Oro Valley has the legal authority to administer animal licenses provided that
the Town enacts an ordinance that is equal to or more stringent than State law.14 Town
staff proposed two methodologies for the administration of licenses: 1) contract with local
veterinarians or 2) have Town staff issue licenses like they do business licenses. Staff felt
the "code allows veterinarians to retain $2 and remit the balance back to the Town".15
Model 1: Contract with Veterinarians
Actually, there is no mention of any authority to pay veterinarians $2 per license sold in
State Statute, County Ordinance or Town Code. Maricopa County Animal Care & Control
had a similar program several years ago and they obtained authority from the County
Board of Supervisors. Pima County Animal Center currently has a contract with 15
veterinarians to sells dog licenses;16 none of these veterinarians are in Oro Valley.
Veterinarians in the PACC program receive $2 for each license sold.
Lessons Learned from Maricopa County
At one time Maricopa County Animal Care & Control contracted with 170 veterinarians to
sell licenses. The veterinarians received a $2 fee per license sold. Maricopa County staff
found the program to be problematic in that it resulted in a six month or longer backlog.
Some of the problems encountered included veterinarians giving the wrong tag to dog
owners, losing tags, and submitting illegible paperwork, all of which required time
consuming staff follow-up to correct. Eventually the program was abandoned not because
of inefficiencies but because of a legal opinion. The Maricopa County Attorney's Office
opined the program was illegal because State law17 mandates only the County Board of
Supervisors can provide tags and that veterinarians cannot legally do so.
For the purpose of this Study, the Oro Valley Town Attorney responded to the above
opinion stating, "I believe the MCAO opinion was a bit too restrictive in its interpretation of
the statute. The statute requires only that a durable tag be provided. It does not
absolutely mandate that the County itself issue these tags. However, it seems that the
practical issues of loss, confusion and delay... identified in the Maricopa County
experience would militate against any person or entity other than the Town itself issuing
the tags."18
Maricopa County also experimented with a program that partnered with the Corrections
Department. This method was abandoned for security reasons. The effort to prevent
inmates from accessing confidential dog owner information resulted in numerous
redundancies and an unacceptable backlog.19
14 11-1018. Exemption of cities,towns and counties:A.The provisions of this article shall not apply to incorporated cities or towns
that impose a license fee and vaccination on dogs by ordinance, provided that such ordinance is equal to or more stringent than
the provisions of this article.
15 The information in this paragraph came from the Request for Proposal For Animal Licensing Program Feasibility Study.
16 PACC Business Coordinator, Edward Taczanowsky, stated in an email dated 2.1.10 that PACC has the authority to enter into
such a contract on its own. List of participating veterinarians at: http://www.pimaanimalcare.org/services/doglicense_shots.asp
17 11-1008. License fees for dogs; issuance of dog tags; classification B. If the board of supervisors adopts a license fee, the
board shall provide durable dog tags. Each dog licensed under the terms of this article shall receive,at the time of licensing,such
a tag on which shall be inscribed the name of the county,the number of the license, and the year in which it expires. Maricopa
County Dog Licensing Manager, Peter Martin provided information on the Vet Licensing Program.
18 Source:Email from Oro Valley Attorney,Tobin Rosen.
19 Source:Martha Bern,former Director of Enforcement and Licensing with Maricopa County.
www.edboks.com 8
The PACC Experience
According to PACC20, the County's Veterinary License Program is generally operating
within acceptable "parameters". Although they do state that "when you have outside
people doing a job for you there is always going to be complications and problems."
PACC reports the program functions without significant delays. They have no problem
with lost tags because the veterinarians do not distribute tags, they only give the customer
a receipt and PACC sends out the tag. Unfortunately, PACC is unable to quantify the
percentage of licenses sold through their veterinary program which makes it difficult to
evaluate its true value.21 However, PACC does report the following problems with the
program. According to PACC participating veterinarians:
1. Do not accept applications from disabled or low income residents (only PACC staff
can do this);
2. Do not always verify if the customer is a senior citizen consequently overcharging
them for a license;
3. Do not always collect late fees as a "customer service" resulting in lost revenue;
4. Do not always get the breed of the dog, so staff has to follow up;
5. Do not always mark the dog as spayed or neutered although they only charge for an
altered license, requiring staff to call and verify. Sometimes the dog is altered and
they just did not mark it and sometimes the dog is not altered and they charged the
customer the wrong fee. If the latter, staff has to refund the money to the customer
and re-bill and reissue a license at the correct fee.
6. Do not always collect the correct fees for the different jurisdictions because they don't
have a computer system to verify jurisdictional fee differences.
7. Do not always ensure the license sold is coterminous with the rabies vaccination
expiration date, which requires staff to contact the customer to explain and resolve the
discrepancy.
8. Do not always get valid addresses, or they provide a physical address that is not a
mailing address, which results in tags returned and staff time to track owners down.
9. Obtain a different address than the address PACC already has in its database,
resulting in duplicate records which could hinder billing, returning lost pets and
sending out the tag.
The Humane Society of Southern Arizona (HSSA) also sells dog licenses for PACC and
affirmed they would continue to do so for Oro Valley for the $2 per license fee. One issue
sited by HSSA22 is that they find some Pima County residents are unclear as to what
jurisdiction they live in. This results in licenses being issued and credited to the wrong
jurisdiction. For instance, they explained some dog owners living in the unincorporated
portion of the county say they live in Tucson or some other nearby municipality. This
study also found evidence of dog owners living in the unincorporated area being included
in the Oro Valley dog license number.23
2°PACC License Program Manager,Jennifer Neustadter
21 PACC Operations Manager Ed Traczanowski reported staff is unable to determine this.
22 HSUS Operations Manager, Pat Hubbard
23 PACC Licenses Sold Report shows five low income fees in Oro Valley even though this fee is restricted to dog owners living in
the unincorporated areas. This is evidence that there may be other dog owners in the unincorporated area that Oro Valley is
getting credit for because they are using an Oro Valley address which may have some affect the 27.9%compliance estimate.
www.edboks.com 9
Oro Valley Veterinarian Survey
Oro Valley has four veterinary practices24 within Town limits. According to the Oro Valley
veterinarians, some Town residents take their pets to veterinarians outside Town limits.
The actual percentage of pet owners who leave Town for veterinary services is difficult to
quantify. However, the consultant found anecdotally that several members of the Town
staff take their pets to veterinarians outside Town limits. Not knowing which or how many
veterinarians provide service to Oro Valley residents would make a Veterinarian
administered program difficult to manage and many resident dog owners might not be
served. A solution to this problem is to allow both Oro Valley veterinarians and Town Hall
to sell licenses. This would also distribute the workload reducing Town staff costs,
provided the Town did not encounter similar difficulties articulated by Maricopa and Pima
Counties above or by an Oro Valley veterinarian below.
The veterinarians practicing in Oro Valley were asked about selling dog licenses for the
Town. One of the veterinarians had provided this service for Pima County several years
ago and found it to be "frustrating," stating s/he25 would "never do it again." Problems this
veterinarian encountered included not always being reimbursed or being reimbursed
months after the fact. This veterinarian stated the work involved was not worth the $2
s/he was sometimes paid; and s/he would not willingly do it again for any price.
The other three veterinarians have no experience selling licenses and two of them said
they would not be interested in participating in a Town program. However, one of these
two veterinarians felt s/he would be forced to participate if clients demanded this service
and that would not be a happy prospect. One veterinarian was adamant that the Town
would not be able to improve on Pima County's program although s/he admitted it needed
help too. S/he felt Oro Valley would have to allocate significant funding and commitment
to enforcement if a local dog licensing program was to be even minimally effective.
One veterinarian was enthusiastic at the prospect of selling licenses for the Town and
would happily do it for the $2. One veterinarian felt strongly that Oro Valley should be
responsible for all animal control services; however, the other three veterinarians had no
opinion on that matter.
Finding: The Town of Oro Valley has the legal authority to administer animal licenses
provided that the Town's ordinance is equal to or more stringent than State law.
Finding: Despite the difficulties described in this Section, veterinarians can add value
to a Town Dog License program and help disburse the workload, provided their
performance is closely monitored and managed. Veterinarians can be paid a fee for
each license sold. The Town Council is probably the appropriate authority for
establishing that fee. This should be verified by the Town Attorney.
24 Canada Hills Animal Hospital;Oro Valley Pet Clinic;Suffolk Hills Pet Clinic;Sun City Veterinary Clinic.
25"s/he"is used generically throughout this document out of respect for anonymity.
www.edboks.com 10
Finding: Oro Valley should enter into an agreement with the HSSA and PACC to sell
dog licenses for Oro Valley residents who adopt from their organizations.26
Finding: Three out of four veterinarians are not interested in participating in a Town Dog
Licensing Program. The Town should initiate and administer the program out of Town
Hall. After the program is established the Town should recruit the willing veterinarian to
participate. After the veterinary model is proven, attempts should be made to recruit the
remaining three veterinarians. Eventually veterinarians in the immediate surrounding
area should also be recruited.27
Finding: Contract license providers (PACC, HSSA, veterinarians) must be held
responsible for ensuring licenses are issued to Oro Valley residents living within the
Town limits and that accurate information is obtained.
Model 2: Town Hall to Sell Licenses
The Town Hall clerical staff stated that taking on the responsibility for issuing dog licenses
would require additional human and material resources. Town Hall staff currently includes
four clerks. Staff believes one additional clerk would be necessary to handle the current
4,044 licenses and an additional clerk(s) would be necessary if that number were to
significantly increase.
This study next assesses28:
1. Two Town staff assumptions
2. Existing revenue sources and potential for revenue growth and cost savings.
3. Focus and purpose of a Town dog licensing program along with supportive plan of
expenditures
4. Transition plan from the existing IGA to a Town-operated program
Staff Assumption: Oro Valley Dog Population
Staff stated in the RFP that "According to the American Veterinary Medical Association
(AVMA), Towns of 45,000 people have an estimated 11,376 dogs."
The AVMA formula provides an approximation of dog populations and dog-owning
households. The AVMA states that because their formulas use sample survey data, they
should not be considered 100% accurate.29 The AVMA also explains that a more
accurate estimate can be obtained by using demographic data specific to the community
in question; and predicts rural states with large geographic areas and low population
densities will find higher rates of ownership while urban states with smaller geographic
areas and larger populations will find lower rates of ownership. However, the AVMA does
not provide specific data for regions within states, or for cities and towns - so other
authoritative sources must be sought.3°
26 Financial and Sustainability Goal #2: Develop a diverse revenue stream and #5: Cultivate healthy business relationships,
o)portunities and environment.
2 Ibidem.
28 As directed in the Request for Proposal For Animal Licensing Program Feasibility Study.
29 AVMA:http://www.avma.org/reference/marketstats/ownership.asp#formulas
3° The AVMA states significant local or regional variations may exist and each community must examine those variations to
determine their local dog population estimate.
www.edboks.com 11
According to the 2006-2008 American Community Survey the population of Oro Valley is
about 43,465 and the average household is 2.46.31 The AVMA formula used in the Town
assumption was based on the 2006 U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey
which estimates 2.5 members per U.S. household. The AVMA directs local communities
to apply state or regional household data to determine a more accurate local dog
population estimate. Before plugging in the specific Oro Valley data to determine a more
accurate dog population estimate the local dynamics that often affect dog populations are
evaluated to determine if they should be weighted as determinative factors.
Spay/Neuter Programs
In many communities local spay and neuter initiatives have a significant impact on animal
populations. In Pima County the Animal Welfare Alliance of Southern Arizona (AWASA)
is perhaps having the greatest impact in this regard. AWASA is committed to increasing
the number of spayed and neutered animals in Pima County. They have been averaging
about 10,000 surgeries per year for several years. These surgeries are funded primarily
by PACC although other donations assist. However, AWASA reports32 that Oro Valley
was never a "targeted area" for spay/neuter efforts. AWASA defines a "targeted area" as
"underserved or economically depressed". PACC reported they have had no targeted
spay/neuter initiatives in Oro Valley either. PACC alters over 5,000 animals per year.
These are primarily animals adopted from PACC. The proximity of some AWASA and
PACC efforts suggests some Oro Valley residents and their pets may have benefitted and
fewer unwanted dogs may be the result. But this assumption is difficult to quantify and
there is no verifiable evidence that any of these spay/neuter efforts has had any direct and
meaningful impact on the Oro Valley dog population.
Landlord and Property Management Restrictions
Another factor that can affect local dog populations is Landlord and Property Management
restrictions on pet ownership. According to a report issued by The Foundation for
Interdisciplinary Research and Education Promoting Animal Welfare in 2005, 50% of all
rentals in a community typically prohibit pets. However, a survey of landlords and
property managers in Oro Valley found this to be decidedly not the case and actually
discovered evidence supporting an even higher dog population estimate than the one
projected by staff in the RFP.33
With 12 apartment complexes34 within Town limits providing 2,673 dwellings, all but one
complex allows dogs, and one allows only 10% of their units to have dogs which accounts
for 22 homes. This means 91% of Oro Valley apartments (2,434) allow up to two dogs35
per unit, making Oro Valley an unusually pet friendly community.
However, all the apartment complexes restrict specific breeds. All the complexes restrict
Pit Bulls and Rottweilers, while many restrict German Shepherds, Chow Chows, Sharpeis,
31 U.S.Census Bureau:http://www.census.gov/
32 AWASA representative Teri White.
33 Staff stated in the RFP that"According to the American Veterinary Medical Association(AVMA), Towns of 45,000 people have
an estimated 11,376 dogs."
34 Boulder Canyon at La Reserve(240),Catalina Crossing(97),Golf Villas at Oro Valley(231), La Reserve Villas(240), Oro Vista
Apartments (130), Pusch Ridge Apartments (144), Rock Ridge Apartments (319), Saddle Ridge (248), Sundown Village
Apartments (330), Sunnyslope Apartments (41 allows No Pets), The Overlook at Pusch Ridge (425), and Vistoso Vacation
Rentals(220 allows 10%or 22 units to have pets)
35 The fairly consistent 2 dog or more limits in Oro Valley apartments and Home Owner Associations supports an AVMA finding
that Arizona dog owning households typically average 1.9 dogs each.
www.edboks.com 12
Dobermans, Great Danes, St. Bernards, Mastiffs and Akitas. Some even restrict Cocker
Spaniels and Boxers.
Oro Valley also has seven condo associations within Town limits, which represents 3,016
dwellings. All the condo associations allow dogs; one has a one dog limit, four have a two
dog limit, and two have no limit on the number of dogs allowed. Only one association
restricts dogs by breed; bully breeds36 and large breeds are not permitted.
Unfortunately, the breeds restricted by these organizations are the very animals most at
risk of euthanasia at PACC. Breed specific ordinances and landlord policies restricting
certain breeds have an adverse affect on minimizing pet euthanasia and unfairly punish
innocent animals and their owners.37
PACC only maintains three years of Oro Valley data as required by law.38 This is a
shame because the best and most effective animal control programs are data driven and
are able to asses and analyze trends and measure progress. Without data an
organization is forced to operate blindly. The good news is that PACC purchased a
shelter management software program over a year ago which will now allow them to
collect, manage and report on data as it is collected over the next years and decades
which should lead to a more effective and accountable animal care and control program.
GRAPH ONE GRAPH TWO
Oro Valley Human Population Growth 350
44,000 ,„ PACC Activities in Oro Valley 327
43,465 00
42,0007mffi _µ 250 1
200 183
40,000 LL
150
39,335
38,000 100
4 108
50
36,000 0
34,000 2007 2008 2009
2004 2005 2008 Calls Animals
The little data that is available confirms an escalating dog population. That is, as the
human population has increased over the past three years so has the number of calls for
animal control assistance and the number of animals handled by PACC, as seen in the
graphs above.39 The "Animals" statistics are a bit misleading in that they include wildlife
36 Bully Breeds are typically identified as American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT, also called a Pit Bull), the American Staffordshire
Terrier (AmStaff), the Bull Terrier (BT), the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Miniature Bull Terrier and the American Bulldog.
Rottweilers, Mastiffs and Boxers are sometimes included. PACC reports 7% of the Oro Valley dogs handled in FY08/09 were Pit
Bulls; which represents 8 dogs: two were adopted, three were returned to owner, two were euthanized, and one was an owner
requested euthanasia.
3'American Kennel Club Statement On Dangerous Dogs; and Breed-Specific Legislation in the United States by Linda S.Weiss,
Michigan State University College of Law(2001); and ANIMAL PEOPLE, March 2002: Dog and Cat Licensing Compliance, Costs
and Effects
38 PACC Business Coordinator, Edward Taczanowsky in an interview with consultant.
39 Human Population Data provided by U.S Census Bureau; PACC data provided by Pima County Health Department
www.edboks.com 13
and owner requested euthanized pets. Both of these categories are discussed in the Cost
Savings Section40 of this report.
Program Management and Policy
Another influence on the number of dog TABLE ONE
licenses sold in a community is program Affect of Fee on Compliance
management and policy decisions. For Unaltered DogLicense
instance, there appears to be a
pp West Midwest Northeast South
relationship between compliance and $11.72 $9.72 $17.86
the cost of a license.
41
The lowest $28.21
e are found in Altered Dog License
on avers
Incense fees, average, . $4.58 $5.93
Northeast, includingNew England,
$150 $4.70 0
the g ,
New York, Pennsylvania, and New Compliance Rate
y
Jersey, and these states have the 24% 28% 32% 10%
highest rates of licensing compliance. Kill Rate
The next lowest fees are found in the 11.8 12.8 4.5 21.6
Midwest, with the next highest rates of compliance. The highest fees are in the West
where compliance is only two-thirds of the rate in the Northeast.
Contrary to survey findings from the 1970s and 80s,42 GRAPH THREE
before the majority of owned dogs in the U.S. were
sterilized, it now appears that charging markedly higher Pima County Licenses
to license unaltered dogs creates more of a 2009
fees
disincentive to license than it does to encourage people to 50000
get their pets fixed; as demonstrated by the graph to the 44967
right.43 45000
40000
As can be seen in Table One, the lowest average 35000
differential cost between unaltered and altered dogs is in
the Northeast, which has the highest rate of licensing 30000
compliance and a shelter killing rate44 less than half the 25000
national average. The widest differential is in the West, 20000
where shelter killing rates range from some of the lowest
15000
in the U.S., along the West Coast (8.5), to some of the
highest, in the Southwest (15.2). The next widest 10000
differential is in the South, with the lowest licensing 5000 3653
compliance and the highest shelter killing rates tending to 0
run double the U.S. norm. The Midwest, with a relatively Altered Unaltered
low licensing differential and relatively high compliance,
has shelter killing rates which mostly cluster just around
the U.S. norms.45
4'
Cost Savings:pertinent paragraphs on Page 35
41 ANIMAL PEOPLE,March,2002: Dog&cat licensing compliance,costs,and effects
42 Ibid.
43 The Arizona Daily Star-December 8,2002:Fewer dogs are being licensed—"More licensed dogs are sterilized but fewer dogs
are being licensed in Tucson since the City Council tried in 1999 to reduce the number of unwanted animals by charging more to
license unsterilized dogs."
44 Kill Rate= Number of dogs and cats killed in a shelter per 1000 human residents in a community. National Average is 13.8.
Pima County kill rate is 12.2(using Pima County human population: 1,022,112 and PACO 2009 euthanasia number: 12,563)
45 ANIMAL PEOPLE,March,2002:Dog&cat licensing compliance,costs, and effects
www.edboks.com 14
When we study the differential fees in Pima County we find the disproportionate number
of altered to unaltered licenses typical of programs with a markedly higher unaltered fee.
While evidence suggesting more dogs are being sterilized is presented later in this report,
we find fewer dogs per capita in Oro Valley are being licensed.
TABLE TWO
r n Oro Sahuarita South Tucson Pima
Ma a a ValleyTucson
County
Population 35,796 45,100 26,274 5,829 553,006 356,107
Dog 11,915 15,013 8,746 1,940 184,088 118,543
Altered 2,580 3,214 1,548 58 39,386 36,952
Service Dog 2 5 1 2 96 70
Senior 431 651 271 21 6,961 7,860
Low Income 0 5 0 0 0 85
Total
3,013 3,875 1,820 2,021 46,443 44,967
Altered '
Unaltered 206 130 117 13 3,080 2,718
Service Dog 2 4 0 0 50 19
Senior 41 34 20 15 986 869
Low Income 0 1 0 2 0 47
Total 249 169 137 30 4,116 3,653
Unaltered '
rotal Lic 3,262 4,044 1,957 2,151 50,559 48,620
Compliance 27% 26.9% 22% 5.7% 27% 41%
Differential $12/50 $15/60 $10/40 $11/45 $15/60 $15/60
Source for Human Population:AZ Dept of Economic Security 2010 projection as opposed to the 2006-2008 American
Community Survey population estimate used elsewhere in this report.
Source for Dog Population estimates:AVMA formula using AZ specific household data provided by US Census Bureau
and dogs per household data provided by AVMA.
Source for Dog Licenses: PACC Licenses Sold Report-March 2009 through February 2010.
For instance, Graph Four demonstrates GRAPH FOUR
that while licensing appears to be
increasing, license compliance is Oro Valley License History
actually less today (27.9%) than it was 5000
in 2003 (31%).46 4000792 9
516
3000
There is more to an effective licensing 2000 - 279
program than trying to manipulate 1000
desired behavior through punitive fees.
Education, promotion, convenience and
enforcement are the components of a 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
successful program.
Regulations of any kind seldom succeed unless a majority of the people or institutions to
be regulated are already voluntarily in compliance or willing to become compliant with
46 2003 estimate was calculated using the 2003 U.S Census human population estimate of 36,653, dog population estimate of
12,201 and the number of licenses sold that year per PACC was 3,792.
www.edboks.com 15
relatively little enforcement. If more than a small percentage object to a regulation enough
to become scofflaws, enforcement becomes overwhelming, and the regulation eventually
tends to be ignored or repealed.
Graph Four shows Oro Valley experienced a 40% decline in licensing beginning in FY
03/04 followed by an 87% increase since FY 06/07. Both of these incidents occurred with
no license program promotions or campaigns or unusual enforcement efforts. This
suggests many Oro Valley dog owners are willing to license their dogs, and many more
might be if they clearly understood the value of licensing and that it is a legal requirement.
Without a strong and clear message to license, many people won't and license
compliance will ebb and wane. Also, compliance isn't just about cost. It's about
convenience. The easier it is to license the higher the compliance rate;47 but people have
to see the value of a license.
PACC data pertaining to this subject goes back to 2001. The County implemented a $60
differential fee in 1999. Graph Five shows that following several years of growth the
program suddenly declined 11% starting in 2005, followed by a 13% increase in 2007 and
2008 and then another 9% drop in 2009. No one at PACC, or any of the stakeholders
interviewed for this report, was able to shed light on the reasons for these fluctuations.
Neither could anyone link any licensing campaign, promotion or enforcement efforts to
either the increases or the decreases.48
GRAPH FIVE
Pima County Dog License History
115000
110000 - µ •
111110 111522
1
05000 \105947
10422
101640 102786 101652
100000
98592
95000
90000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
These types of cycles are not uncommon. For instance, LA Animal Services, which has a
much longer recorded data history, experienced many up and down fluctuations over the
years. What is different is the ability to explain these fluctuations.
47 Found Animal Foundation:A Licensing Overview,2009
48 ANIMAL PEOPLE March 2004: "Tucson impressively halved its killing rate in the five years following the implementation of a
$60 differential fee but the licensing compliance rate fell because efforts were focused on improving sterilization rates instead of
selling licenses."
www.edboks.com 16
LA Animal Services Annual Reports GRAPH SIX
(dating back to 1975) attribute license LA License History
increases to public information and
enforcement, and declines to efforts being PERCENT OF ALL DOGS LICENSED
redirected to ensuring animals were 60.00% -
spayed or neutered rather than licensed.49 (1987) 57%
Successful licensing programs do not
have a divided focus. When LA was
boastinga 57% compliance rate, the '
50.00%
licensing law was being enforced by
canvassing over 65% of all the
households door-to-door every year.
There was also a strong canvassing a
follow-up program. If an owner did not o
40.00/o
respond to either the first or the second
notification to renew, an officer (Animal
License Inspector) personally visited the
(2002) 36%s�
owner at the owner's residence. Owners
had the expectation that they would be
required to comply. Scofflaws were 30.00% •
discouraged from trying to evade the law. 1960 1980 2000
Finding: Licensing fees must be affordable and not punitive. It is okay to reward
owners who alter their pets with lower fees, but to punish owners with inordinately
higher fees for not altering their pets only drives them out of the licensing program.
Finding: The Town Hall clerical staff is able to take on this responsibility provided the
necessary human and material resources are allocated.50
Finding: Oro Valley is an unusually pet friendly community. Town staff should enroll
(or mandate by ordinance) Apartment and Home Owner Associations to require dogs
to be licensed as a lease condition of occupancy.51 Dog parks should also be
restricted to licensed dogs only.
Finding: There is significant potential for increasing dog license sales. Benchmarking
found lower fees and a narrower differential accompany revenue and compliance
increases and lower shelter euthanasia rates.
Finding: If the Town of Oro Valley is interested in mitigating the euthanasia rate at
PACC more must be done to encourage greater understanding of breeds at risk
49 Los Angeles Animal Services STUDY OF THE DOG LICENSING PROGRAM OCTOBER 2008;The overall decline in dog licenses is due
to a decreasing dog population resulting from nearly 40 years of aggressive spay/neuter programs.
5°Financial and Economic Sustainability Goal#4: Ensure financial resources are available with a supportable level of community
services
51 Economic and Sustainability Goal#5:Cultivate healthy business relationships,opportunities and environment.
www.edboks.com 17
among landlords and property managers. Restricting entire breeds is not the
answer.52
Finding: Licensing must be decoupled from spay/neuter and leash law enforcement.
It is more important to register dog owners first and then educate on the benefits of
spay and neuter and leash law requirements. A divided focus hurts licensing
compliance.
Modified Oro Valley Dog Population Estimate
Having reviewed the various dynamics that might influence the Oro Valley dog population,
we can now confidently plug the specific Oro Valley data into the AVMA formula. When
we do, we arrive at a 27% higher dog population estimate than the one resulting from the
national AVMA formula cited in the Town RFP.
Oro Valley Human Population (43,465) divided by the Average Oro Valley
Household (2.4654 or 17,668) multiplied by the Arizona Percentage Estimate of Dog
Owning Households (43.1% or .431 or 7,615) multiplied by the Arizona Estimate of
Dogs Per Household(1.9) equals an estimated dog population of 14,468.
Finding: The revised Dog Population Estimate of 14,468 dogs reveals a tremendous
market opportunity for implementing a needed Dog Licensing Program. Over 70% of
the dogs in Oro Valley are unlicensed.
52 Quality of Life Goal #6: Provide diverse educational, informational and recreational opportunities; American Kennel Club
Statement On Dangerous Dogs;and Breed-Specific Legislation in the United States by Linda S.Weiss, Michigan State University
College of Law(2001);and ANIMAL PEOPLE, March 2002: Dog and Cat Licensing Compliance, Costs and Effects
53 U.S. Pet Ownership& Demographics Sourcebook, 2007 Edition,American Veterinary Medical Association, 2007, page 20/21.
The AVMA estimates 43.1%of all households in Arizona own an average of 1.9 dogs.
54'bid
www.edboks.com 18
Staff Assumption: Potential Revenue
In the RFP, staff stated, "According to the American Pet Products Manufacturing
Association, 28% of owned dogs are not spayed or neutered. Thus, Oro Valley has an
estimated 8,191 altered dogs and 3,185 unaltered dogs. If we charge the current County
fee for licenses,55 and we obtain near 100% compliance, Oro Valley could collect up to
$313,965 in license fees. However, some of this revenue would be needed to purchase
equipment to take over the animal care and control services."
The American Pet Products Association GRAPH SEVEN
(APPA) estimate came from a mail survey National Surveys on Unaltered Dogs
sent to a consumer panel of 1,000 120%
households nationally. A PETsMART
Charities survey released in May 2009 100%
sampled 3,000 dog owners nationally; which
800/0 30% 35%
goodsampleY
is considered asize and fairly
80/°°
predictive. A Humane Society of the United 60%
States (HSUS) random-digit telephone
survey in March 2009 sampled a smaller 40% 65/0
72% 70% °
number and restricted participants to the 20%
Louisiana/Mississippi region. Regional results
were extrapolated to calculate a national 0% I
estimate. All are good studies with results in APPA HSUS PC
a similar range. The PETsMART Charities Altered Dogs Unaltered Dogs
study estimates 35% of all dogs are
unaltered. The HSUS study estimates 30% are unaltered. 56
Another indicator sometimes used to help determine the GRAPH EIGHT
number of altered and unaltered dogs is the ratio of altered to Oro Valley Dog
unaltered dog licenses sold. However, in communities with a Licenses 2009
significant differential fee some owners with unaltered dogs are 4500 I
reluctant or resistant to paying the higher unaltered dog license 4000 3875
fee.57 In these communities, this ratio may only serve to 3500
obfuscate the attempt to calculate a realistic dog population 3000
IF
estimate because as pointed out earlier, "charging markedly
higher fees to license unaltered animals appears to create a 2500
disincentive to licensing" among unaltered dog owners.58 This 2000
certainly appears to be the case in both Pima County (Graph 1500
Three) and Oro Valley when you consider the significant 1000
fluctuations (Graph Five) in dog licensing since enactment of 500 169
the $60 dog license differential fee for unaltered dogs and the o
lopsided sale of altered to unaltered licenses as demonstrated Altered Unaltered
in Graphs Eight, Nine and Ten. ..._..i
55 Pima County Dog License fees are $15 for altered and $60 for unaltered, however Pima County has different fees for low
income residents($8 and$24)and senior and disabled citizens($10 and$17).
56 HSUS Study: Messaging Spay/Neuter, Lessons from the Gulf Coast Spay/Neuter Campaign, March 2009; PETsMART
Charities: Barriers to Pet Adoption and Spay/Neuter Services, May 2009
57 ANIMAL PEOPLE,March 2002:Dog and Cat License Compliance, Costs and Effects
58 Ibid.
www.edboks.com 19
GRAPH NINE GRAPH TEN
Altered/Unaltered License Ratios -2009 Tucson Dog Licenses
4500 2009
4000 3875 50000 46443
45000
3500 3013 40000
3000 35000
2500 30000
2000
1820 2021 25000
20000
1500
1J
.. .. 14116
249 930 5000
11111
Marana Oro Valley Sahuarita S. Tucson Altered Unaltered
Altered Unaltered
If the APPA estimate is correct, and using the adjusted dog population estimate for Oro
Valley (14,468), then an estimated 4,051 dogs in Oro Valley are unaltered and the
estimated 10,417 remaining dogs are laudably altered. If the current County dog fees for
altered and unaltered licenses are established in the Town of Oro Valley up to $399,315
could be collected if 100% compliance was achieved and if there are no discounted fees
for low income, senior and disabled residents as are currently permitted in Pima County.
If the same Pima County fee discounts are applied to the Oro Valley program then we
might expect the following reduction to this estimate:
.12% (5) altered service dog fee $8
.12% (5) altered low income dog: fee $10
15.25% (651) altered senior citizen dog: fee $10
.09% (4) unaltered service dog: fee $17
.02% (1) unaltered low income dog: fee $27
.80% (34) unaltered senior citizen dog: fee $17
(For a total of $7,273)
When the results of the three national surveys are averaged together the estimated
number of unaltered dogs could be as high as 31% or 4,485 dogs. If accurate, this could
result in a revenue stream of $418,845 if a 100% compliance rate could be achieved.
Again, if the same Pima County discounts applied to the Oro Valley program this amount
would be less.
Determining a realistic license compliance rate goal for Oro Valley is discussed next.
www.edboks.com 20
Oro Valley Dog License Compliance Rate
With 4,04461 dog licenses and a dog population of about TABLE THREE
14,468, Oro Valley has a 27.9% license compliance rate; 2002 Lic.
which is just shy of the U.S. average of 28%. According Survey59 Rate
to ANIMAL PEOPLE editor, Merritt Clifton, who Pima County6° 41%
conducted the only available national dog license Lincoln 40%
compliance survey (2002), data assembled since that Chicago 25%
time has continued to fall within the same range, that is, Philadelphia 25%
compliance rates typically average 28%. p
verifiable Yp Y Seattle 25%
Maricopa County has a 28% rate, Los Angeles a 38% San Francisco 15%
rate, and Pima County, AZ and Lincoln, Nebraska at 41% Salt Lake City13%
and 40% respectively are the highest verifiable rates in
p y 62 g Fort Worth 10%
U.S. communities today. Calgary Animal Services 10%
in Alberta, Canada reports a 90% compliance
Milwaukee
(CAS) p p 28%rate.63 And Chicago was at 3% in 2000. U.S. Average
While 40% appears to be the high end of achievable compliance, communities can
achieve higher compliance rates by adopting strategies that include: 1) A Sensible and
Focused Policy Structure, 2) An Easy and Accessible Process, 3) A Ubiquitous Education
and Outreach Program, and 4) A Consistent Neighborhood Canvassing Program.64
Town staff asked if dogs belonging to Oro Valley's "large snowbird population" which may
"be licensed... outside of this region" would "impact to the final compliance estimates."
According to the Arizona Department of Commerce, "snowbirds" (defined as people living
in Oro Valley less than six months a year) are not included in population estimates.65
However, "snowbirds" residing in Arizona for more than 30 consecutive days66 in a year
would be required to license their dog with Oro Valley -- suggesting the actual number of
dogs to be licensed may actually be higher67 than the report estimate.
Finding: A realistic stretch goal for Oro Valley, an affluent, educated community is
40% by the year 2015 and 50% by the year 2020.68
59 ANIMAL PEOPLE,March 2002:Dog and Cat Licensing Compliance, Costs and Effects
60 Applying specific Pima County data found that Pima County may have the highest known compliance rate in the U.S.
61 PACC Calendar Year 2009 Licenses Sold and Late Fees Report
62 According to ANIMAL PEOPLE editor Merritt Clifton,who conducted the 2002 survey and has been assembling data since,the
Lincoln rate is attributed to the 28 year career of the former Animal Control director, Jim Weverka, who is said to have known
every dog in town; a stable department, in a stable community, working through word of mouth. Even the student body at the
University of Nebraska is mainly from Lincoln and elsewhere in Nebraska,so the extreme transience that usually afflicts university
towns was much less an issue. Clifton suspected Pima County's high compliance rate was due to underestimating the dog
population, however,this study's findings suggest the high compliance rate is valid.
Calgary Animal Control credits law enforcement for this success but does not take into account the role of education and
salesmanship. Former executive director of CAC, Jerry Aschenbrenner, invested 25 years of effective salesmanship before the
current administration took over ten years ago. Salesmanship put law enforcement into position to be effective. However,there
are significant differences between the Canadian and US program requirements. While we can learn from the Calgary model we
cannot compare apples to apples. More on the Calgary model can be found on page 50
64 Los Angeles Animal Services STUDY OF THE DOG LICENSING PROGRAM,OCTOBER 2008 found LA had a 57%compliance rate in
1975 and Calgary has a 90% compliance rate today following these principles; California based, Found Animal Foundation: A
Licensing Overview,2009 confirms this finding.
65 According to AZ Dept.of Commerce State Demographer William Schooling
66 ARS 11-1008. License Fees for Dogs; Issuance of Dog Tags; Records; Classification A. The board of supervisors of each
county may set a license fee which shall be paid for each dog four months of age or over that is kept, harbored or maintained
within the boundaries of the state for at least thirty consecutive days of each calendar year.
67 Town staff provided an unscientific estimate of 20%"snowbird"population influx during the winter months.
68 At 27.9%,Oro Valley is at the national average with no promotion or significant enforcement effort. By applying recommended
strategies Oro Valley should quickly recover its 2003 compliance rate of 31%and then achieve a rate equal to Pima County.
www.edboks.com 21
Existing Revenue Sources
Existing revenue from licensing is $38,561 (see Table 5 on page 24). Additionally, the
Town of Oro Valley has one .63/FTE (up to 25 hrs/wk) vacant Senior Office Assistant
position with a budgeted compensation range of $12.95 to $19.43 plus an average 28%
benefits package.6g This position is comparable to the Pima County licensing clerk
positions (8) which are classified as Office Support Level III (OSL3), and are also part-
time (20 hrs/wk) and have a compensation range of $12.47 to $17.45 plus an average of
28.1% for benefits.7°
TABLE FOUR
Pima County Existing Oro Valley
Licensing Clerk Vacant Position
Office Support Level III (OSL3) Senior Office Assistant
part-time (20 hrs/wk) .63/FTE (up to 25 hrs/wk)
$12.47 to $17.45 $12.95 to $19.43
28.1% benefits package 28% benefits package
There is also a Senior Office Assistant on staff at the Parks and Recreation facility, which
is an ideal dog license selling location. However, staff feels this position is already
functioning at maximum capacity and would be unable to take on this added responsibility
even with additional compensation.71 Police substations should also be considered as
neighborhood friendly locations for selling dog licenses, however, when asked about the
availability of Police substations and staff to sell dog licenses, Oro Valley Police Chief
stated, "We are in the process of evaluating service cuts that could affect hours of
operations. At this time I would have to say we do not anticipate having the ability to sell
dog licenses at our substations."72
Maricopa County has 15 FULL-TIME license clerks processing 340,000 licenses annually.
According to HLP Chameleon, a well trained clerk should be able to process one license
every three to five minutes. In addition, Maricopa County purchased the automated HLP
Chameleon WebLicensing program capable of processing six licenses per second or
21,600 every hour. This module allows dog owners to purchase new or renewal dog
licenses on-line and prints a receipt for fees and donations on their personal computer.
Maricopa County makes over $10,000 a month in license related donations. This program
still requires staff to mail the license tags out. However, the Chameleon Data Processing
(CDP) module is another upgrade that is fully automated and even mails out the license
tags, renewal notices, and reminder notices automatically. PACC has 8 PART-TIME
license clerks processing 100,000 to 110,000 licenses annually using the Chameleon
Basic program which does not have the on-line functionality.
Fountain Hills has one FULL-TIME Customer Service Representative which serves as an
intake person for all Town payments (including business and dog licenses). This position
is also responsible for the follow up on delinquent dog licenses which is typically referred
69 Although funding exists for the vacant position, the proposed budget suggests funding be taken from the animal licensing
revenue to ensure staff does not lose this position for its intended use. Cross-training will ensure adequate coverage during times
of vacation,illness,etc.
70 Pima County Classification and Compensation information: http://www.pima.gov/hr/benefits.html
71 Source:Oro Valley Finance Director
72 Source:Email to consultant
www.edboks.com 22
to Code Enforcement. The position is currently filled by two PART-TIME people so no
benefits apply. The Customer Service Representative Range is $14.20 - $20.19.
Fountain Hills processes about 3,300 licenses annually and they do not provide on-line
service.
Finding: Fill the vacant Senior Office Assistant position and assign to the Oro Valley
Dog Licensing Program, with other duties as required. With appropriate technological
and management support this part-time position can easily process 6,400 licenses a
year73 and much more with on-line licensing.
Finding: A License Program Strategic Plan should be developed as part of the ramp
up to implement a program that maps a course towards ever increasing compliance
rates by incorporating more robust technologies as budget permits, better customer
service methodologies and as appropriate penalties able to incentivize compliance.
Finding: The License program must include a donation component dedicated to
funding animal welfare events and education campaigns.
Finding: According to State Statute, Oro Valley must create a Separate Enterprise
Fund into which any revenue generated from a Town Dog License program must be
deposited. These funds must be used strictly for expenses relating to enforcement of
the animal control ordinance.74
Potential Revenue Growth
When the results of the three national GRAPH ELEVEN
surveys on the number of unaltered dogs
in the United States, shown in the Graph to National Surveys on Unaltered Dogs
the 120%
the right, are averagedtogether
number of unaltered dogs could be as high 100%
as 31% or 4,485 dogs. If accurate, this ° 28% 30% ° ..
80% 35/o
reveals a possible revenue stream of
$269,100 for unaltered dogs and $149,745 60% - ,
for the 9,983 altered dogs for a potential of
$418,845 if a 100% compliance rate 40% L
°
114
65%
could be achieved. This amount would
20°/0
be lower if Oro Valley enacted low income,
senior and disabled fees that mirror Pima 0%
County fees or enacted fees different from APPA HSUS PC
Pima County. Altered Dogs a Unaltered Dogs
73 2080 hours per year, less 80 holiday hours, less 80 hours (2 weeks) vacation/sick combined = 1920 hours per FTE. The
vacant senior office assistant position is.63 FTE which would be.67*1920*5=6432.
74 11-1008. License fees for dogs; issuance of dog tags; classification D. All fees and penalties shall be deposited in the rabies
control fund pursuant to section 11-1011; 11-1011. Rabies control fund A.The board of supervisors(Town Council)shall transmit
the monies collected under the provisions of this article to the county (Town)treasurer for deposit in a special fund to be known
as the rabies control fund to be used for the enforcement of the provisions of this article and the regulations promulgated
thereunder. The county(Town) treasurer shall maintain the fund. B. Any unencumbered balance remaining in the rabies control
fund at the end of a fiscal year shall be carried over into the following fiscal year.
www.edboks.com 23
Potential revenue growth will be determined by the technological and human resource
capacities brought to bear. An effective program will require a robust software package
with accounting, financial and donation processing functionalities that interface with the
Town's financial management systems. Promotion and enforcement are also important
components that will be discussed later.
Technology is the backbone of a successful program. Four packages are reviewed in this
report; two software programs and two outsourcing options. However, there are many
other options available. An RFP process will help ensure the best program is found to
meet the needs of Oro Valley. Another benefit of the competitive process is that it may
discover a vendor able to deliver on-line functionalities at an affordable price. On-line
functionality should be made part of an Oro Valley Dog Licensing program at the earliest
possible opportunity. Prices in this report are estimates and Town staff will have to work
with vendors for an exact quote.
TABLE 5: TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
LICENSE REVENUE PROJECTIONS
Current Revenue Proposed
Fees - FY09* Fees FY11 FY15 FY20
Licenses
Altered $15 42058 $15 $48,300 $79,725 $107,415
Unaltered $60 6767 $50 $6,500 $10,750 $14,500
Senior/disabled altered $10 5678 $10 $6,570 $10,840 $14,500
Low Income altered* $8 36 $8 $40 $64 $112
Senior/disabled unaltered $17 487 $17 $646 $1,071 $1,445
Low Income unaltered* $27 27 $27 $27 $54 $54
Transfer of Ownership $10 $10
Duplicates $10 $10
Penalties
Less than one year $10 1788 $10 $2,210 $3,650 $4,920
One-two years $22 84 $22 $88 $154 $198
Over two years $36 $36 $0 $0 $0
Totals $56,925 $64,381 $106,308 $143,144
*Pima County did not provide actuals for FY09, so this is
based on CY09 licenses sold.
There was a total licensing revenue of$38,561 for FY08, and an additional $8,023 paid by Oro Valley to
Pima County for FY08—total $46,584.
FY11 - based on 14,468, 28% compliance (4051 licenses)
FY15- based on 16,718, 40% compliance (6687 licenses)
FY20 - based on 18,020, 50% compliance (9010 licenses)
www.edboks.com 24
Software Programs and Costs
Option One: MUNIS is used by Fountain Hills and is the same software program that the
Town of Oro Valley uses. Fountain Hills uses the licensing module for dog licenses. They
have some issues with the program stating, "It doesn't work as well as we would like".75
Fountain Hills reports that the transition from a County to a Town dog licensing program
was seamless as far as residents were concerned. However, they did struggle with the
implementation training from the vendor. Apparently Fountain Hills is the only city/town in
the nation that has purchased the dog license program from MUNIS.
The MUNIS module does not allow on-line processing nor does it take
credit cards. Fountain Hills is limited to a POS (Point of Sale) program to accept dog
license payments and issue receipts. They accept mailed in renewals and can run
applications and renewals through their credit card program (POS) and mail out the tag.
Oro Valley's IT Department will have to develop a program in ACCESS to accommodate
this function.
Pricing: Program Module - $4,500.
Training costs are about $2,350.
Annual support costs are $1,250.
Total: $8,150
Option Two: Chameleon provides three separate modules — Oro Valley can start with
Basic Chameleon. This program alone is capable of supporting a first-rate licensing
program. The Town can add on either the WebLicensing or the Chameleon Data
Processing initially or at a later date for a more dynamic and robust program.
Basic Chameleon is a powerful program used by over 400 agencies nationwide. It stores
all of the information about animals, people, and rabies vaccinations (and anything else
an animal control program needs to track). Regardless of where the new or renewed
license information is coming from Chameleon is the repository. Chameleon also makes it
easy to retrieve information about licenses coming due, run reports to create renewal
letters, update records based on responses to the notices, and retrieve information about
licenses that have expired for follow-up. While Chameleon can facilitate this process it
does require staff to run reports, print and mail license renewals, and process the
responses to the renewals.
Chameleon Basic Software Pricing:
One-time fee of $9,800
Annual fee of$1,920 (estimated 1 server and 1 workstation, add @$960 each)
Training $2,700 (3 days onsite)
Initial Price for Chameleon Basic: $14,420
75 Fountain Hills Finance Director,Julie Ghetti suggests Oro Valley staff talk to her before investing in this module.
www.edboks.com 25
Chameleon and WebLicensing is an add-on that allows a dog owner to use the
information from the license renewal notice to renew the license online. It is a quick
process that allows owners to pay with a credit card immediately. It saves time by
updating any transaction that happened with WebLicensing automatically in Chameleon,
reducing the amount of mail and check payments that staff need to process. The site
does the renewals, postage reminders, etc.
Chameleon with WebLicensing Add On
Basic Chameleon One-time fee of $9,800
Annual fee of$1,920 (estimated 1 server and 1 workstation, add @$960 each)
Training $2,700 (3 days onsite)
WebLicensing one-time fee of $10,000
Annual fee of $2,880 for 1st 10,000 transactions; then $0.35 per transaction up to 30,000
transactions, then $0.20 per transaction over 30,000 transactions.
Initial Price for Chameleon and Web Licensing (10,000 transactions): $27,300
Chameleon and Data Processing allows for the outsourcing of many of the labor
intensive activities of a licensing program. This can also help avoid costly mailing and
data entry clerks. CDP will analyze the Chameleon database for upcoming renewals,
generate and mail renewal notices to patrons, receive and process payments remitted by
patrons by mail or WebLicensing, and even deliver a license tag if necessary. All of this
information is then seamlessly integrated in the Chameleon database, so the Town has
ready access to current license information. If the Town receives paper rabies vaccination
forms from local veterinarians,76 CDP can provide data processing for these forms, create
electronic records for the information, and integrate them into Chameleon. This can also
increase licensing compliance and revenue generated, as animals that are vaccinated but
not licensed are identified and their owners are sent notices advising them that their
animal is required to be licensed.
While this service can greatly reduce the cost of staffing salary and benefits this is not a
total outsourcing solution, as the customer service piece and over the counter license
sales responsibilities remain with Town staff.
Chameleon with Data Processing Add on
Basic Chameleon One-time fee of $9,800
Annual fee of$1,920 (estimated 1 server and 1 workstation, add @$960 each)
Training $2,700 (3 days onsite)
Data Processing One-time fee of$10,000 (discounted to $5,000 w/commitment)
Per transaction fees of $2.00 (estimated and only paid as transactions occur)
Initial Price for Chameleon and Data Processing Add On: $26,420
Annually thereafter with 1 workstation: $8,920
76 ARS 11-1010.Anti-rabies vaccination;vaccination and license stations A. Before a license is issued for any dog,the owner or
a veterinarian must present a paper or electronic copy or telefacsimile of the vaccination certificate signed by a veterinarian
stating the owner's name and address, and giving the dog's description, date of vaccination, manufacturer and serial number of
the vaccine used and date revaccination is due. A duplicate of each rabies vaccination certificate issued shall be transmitted to
the county enforcement agent within two weeks of the date the dog was vaccinated. No dog shall be licensed unless it is
vaccinated in accordance with the provisions of this article and the regulations promulgated pursuant to this article.
www.edboks.com 26
Option Three: Global Pet Search, Inc (GPS) — GPS is a dog identification program that
can be utilized as a turn-key dog license program that can track licensing, rabies
vaccinations and donations and includes a 24/7 trained live operator search and rescue
phone support system. Licenses can be purchased at Town Hall, local veterinarians, area
shelters, and online reducing Oro Valley administration costs.
An estimate for an initial "one-time only" set-up and web development fee inclusive of all
GPS features is $10,000. A monthly project management fee is estimated at $300- $400
a month for web hosting ($100) and Shopcart monthly fee ($35) and Live Operator Search
and Rescue Support Service fees. Tags cost $2.50 each including simple packaging and
instructions.
The Live Operator assistance program is designed to reunite lost pets with
owners mitigating the need for much of the Animal Control retrieval, booking, boarding,
medical and euthanasia costs. This is a very unique feature. This is a relatively new
service provider and Oro Valley specifications would need to be clearly defined. Unlike
the other programs evaluated, this one can be customized to meet Oro Valley needs,
according to the vendor.
GPS Cost Estimate: $31,000
Option Four: PetData® Services offers:
1. Processing incoming mail;
2. Depositing revenue;
3. Entering licensing and vaccination data;
4. Mailing license tags;
5. Customer service to citizens, veterinarians, and agency staff;
6. Collecting and processing tag sales reports from authorized registrars;
7. Maintaining privacy of data according to applicable laws;
8. Mailing licensing notices and follow-up notices to citizens;
9. Offering online licensing with credit card payment.
PetData also provides employee pay incentives based on production. The company's
single focus on licensing and emphasis on production-based pay incentives are two
reasons local agencies with limited staffing authority or budget resources employ PetData
to increase both current compliance rates and revenue levels. According to the licensing
manager for the agency covering unincorporated Fulton County, Georgia, and the eight
surrounding municipalities including Atlanta, PetData has, "...vastly improved our
turnaround time for licenses, increased the number of animals licensed and freed up
several of our staff members so they can provide other services needed in our operation."
Small local agencies with staffing/budget limits that have opted to outsource with PetData
exist in a variety of sizes and organizational structures as shown in Table Six below:
www.edboks.com 27
TABLE SIX: Small Communities Outsourcing with PetData
City/County Public/Private Population City/County Public/Private Population
CA Public Entity100 000 San Luis Obispo Public Entity 45,000
Antioch, County, CA
287 000 San Clemente, Contract with 57,000
Brazoria Co. TX Public Entity CA Private 501(c)3
A Contract with 35 000 South Ogden, Public Entity 78,000
Dana Point, C Private 501(c)3 Utah
Dupont, WA Public Entity 2,000 Steilacoom, WA Public Entity 5,000
Fairfield, CA Public Entity 100,000 Torrance, CA Public Entity 145,000
Lake Jackson, TX Public Entity 26,000 Vacaville, CA Public Entity 95,000
Lakewood, WA Public Entity 58,000 Vallejo, CA Public Entity 120,000
PetData attempts to manage the complete renewal collection service by providing the staff
and administration supplies (including receipts, applications, customized renewal forms,
and envelopes, but not the tags), preparing and issuing receipts, preparing monthly
reports, and collecting and depositing revenue.
PetData Base Fees:
The Standard Fees are not charged until the license is issued. Data entry of rabies
vaccination certificates and incomplete licenses, which may or may not result in a license,
are included at no extra charge. An agreed-upon method to follow-up with pet owners
who did not respond to a prior notice is also included at no additional cost. This structure
is designed to 1) ensure that PetData is working on behalf of the client to increase
licensing; and 2) provide the client with more control and certainty by establishing a set
price for results and not charging simply for individual tasks associated with licensing.
PetData does not charge additional fees for processing and entering, or mailing notices
for vaccination data. PetData is paid for all licenses issued during the contract period,
including those licenses issued by Animal Services, Veterinarians, and any authorized
registrars or agents.
• $3.85 per license for a one-year license or a replacement tag.
• $2.00 for each additional year after year one if there are multi-year licenses.
• $2.50 Collection Service Fee for each late fee collected during the term of this
Agreement, if applicable.
• $1,000 one-time only start-up fee.
www.edboks.com 28
For any online licensing provider there will be additional service fee costs. Oro Valley will
have to secure a merchant gateway. Vendors typically have "approved" gateways that will
not be charged by the vendor, but if an unapproved gateway is selected there would be
fees. Bank fees range from $2.50-$3.00. Some Licensing Programs pass these fees
along to the client and some absorb them. Chameleon reports one of their clients charges
a $5.00 fee to cover fully loaded administration costs. Merchant account fees can be
negotiated with banks.
Finding: Sharing program costs with neighboring communities, like the Town of
Marana,77 would provide an economy of scale on web development and other facets
of the program (printing, training, etc.)
Finding: Limit capital expenses unless they can be justified as revenue generating
tools. Capitalize on any low cost or free option that can improve license compliance.
Initially, take on Licensing minimally. As license revenue and program confidence
increase, expand the program with more robust technology and staffing options.
Finding: Obtain software with accounting, financial and donation processing
functionalities that interface with the Town's financial management systems; software
that tracks, verifies, and reports on baseline statistics that measure performance.78
For the purpose of budgeting, Chameleon Basic is proposed as a middle of the road
cost for initiating the program, however, the RFP process will ensure the best program
for the price, and the competitive process may reveal the Town can afford an on-line
module which will add real value for dog owners and increase revenue. Outsourcing
should also be seriously considered.
"Assistant to the Marana Town Manager, Joshua Wright expressed interest in partnering with Oro Valley on a Dog Licensing
Program. Such a partnership is consistent with Oro Valley Community Infrastructure Goal #5: Partner with regional jurisdictions
to cooperate in the development and maintenance of quality infrastructure,as appropriate.
78 Infrastructure Goal#6:Maintain a high-speed data network to meet information storage and data management needs to
provide timely and accurate information.
www.edboks.com 29
Promotion and Canvassing Programs
Oro Valley has a 27.9% license compliance rate which is just shy of the national average
(28%). Oro Valley may be able to achieve 40 or 50% compliance, maybe more. But it is
likely the Town is already near the high end of what can be done voluntarily without
promotion and enforcement.
A significant voluntary compliance increase can be achieved through a well orchestrated
media/promotional campaign. Dog owners in Oro Valley appear responsible in view of the
high percentage of spay/neuter and the significant number of licenses sold voluntarily.
Many Oro Valley dog owners may not be licensing for a variety of reasons. They may not
know it is required. They may think the rabies tag the veterinarian gave them is a license.
Unfortunately, not everyone pays attention to the paperwork veterinarians distribute, and
veterinarians don't always distribute it. Some dog owners just might not understand the
value of licensing their dog.
A campaign could reinforce a sense of Town pride, "We love our dogs, that's why we
license our dogs!" Bumper stickers could be placed on all town vehicles, signs posted as
appropriate, etc. There are many low cost ways of signaling to the community that there
is a sea change occurring regarding dog licensing. Partnering with local publicist firms to
develop PR campaigns pro bono should be looked into.79
However, the most effective means of indicating this new attitude is not inexpensive.
Effective licensing programs are typically associated with effective enforcement, and
effective enforcement usually requires door to door canvassing. The dilemma inherent
with canvassing is that while it can significantly increase license sales and revenue, it can
also upset constituents. There is a long history of effective door to door canvassing
programs being dismantled by elected officials who tired of getting upset phone calls from
outraged dog owning constituents.80 Effective canvassing programs require resolve and
commitment.
Most effective programs employ license canvassers.81 In Oro Valley, a Canvassing Team
of three or four should be sufficient. The Team could be comprised of well-trained
Volunteers (Posse) who report to the Police Chief or his designee, or temps, part-time or
seasonal help could be hired to mitigate costs, as benefits are not included. University of
Arizona students may be prime candidates for this program.
Most canvassers drive a municipal vehicle and are assigned to a specific area. A few
drive their personal vehicles and are reimbursed for mileage. To keep mileage costs
down, employees that drive personal vehicles may be assigned to areas closest to their
home. A specific geographic location to canvass is determined in advance. The software
package should be able to identify and provide a list of delinquent pet-owners currently in
79 A License Campaign was developed for Maricopa County pro bono by a National firm based in Phoenix. Oro Valley may be
able to use it.
Maricopa County in 1999, Montgomery County, Maryland in 1993 and Fort Wayne, Indiana in 1992 are three examples.
81 Orange County,Ventura County and Riverside County employ License Inspectors. Ventura's Inspectors are seasonal. City of
Los Angeles employs eight(8)canvassers and one enforcement officer. For 20 years,from the mid 1960's to the mid 1980's the
Department employed Animal License Inspectors who had full police powers and were considered professional enforcement
officers.
www.edboks.com 30
the database to canvassers. As the canvassers proceed through a neighborhood, new
pet-owners are identified and an attempt is made to issue a license for each dog.
Canvas Team Hours
The weekend is when most residents, responsible for payment, are most likely to be at
home. Canvassers from most jurisdictions work one or both weekend days. Cities and
counties employ full-time and part-time canvassers to cover as much territory as possible
during the spring and summer months when days are longer and inclement weather is
less likely to hamper efforts and when there is an increase in the numbers of litters
whelped in that period. Because of the summer heat, October through March is an
appropriate canvassing "season" for Oro Valley and this would still allow capturing the
most number of litters as well as educating "snowbirds".
During the off season, the full-time employees spend less time canvassing and handle
other duties as required. Part-time/limited term employees are released until the following
season.
The 2008 door-to-door campaign in Calgary ran from May to September. Multiple teams
were comprised of six college students and one Enforcement Officer. Residents are given
the opportunity to purchase and receive a license on the spot. Residents may also
choose to use on-line, mail-in or walk-in registration at a shelter within the next two weeks.
In two weeks, if the license has not been purchased, the enforcement officer returns and
issues a citation.82 Calgary animal control explained this approach is most successful
when preceded by a promotional campaign in the months preceding canvassing.
Canvass Team Training
Canvassers are closer to door-to-door salespersons than police officers and interrelated
training is important. Local agencies often provide on-going training to maintain safety
standards. Canvassers will encounter dangerous animals and must carry and know how
to use various animal control devices. Canvassers occasionally carry large amounts of
cash and may encounter life-threatening situations. As a result, basic self defense and/or
personal protection training are offered by many agencies.
King County, WA and Riverside County, CA canvassing managers indicated that, in
addition to safety, a comprehensive training program for canvassers is essential due to
the level of knowledge and skills required. Both of these agencies have training programs
that include the following subjects as well as safety and personal protection:
• Health and Safety;
• Customer Service/Dealing with Difficult People;
• Sales Force Motivation;
• Animal Related Laws; and,
• Administrative Procedures.
82 This is actually a requirement of ARS 11-1008. License fees for dogs; issuance of dog tans;classification E.Any person who
knowingly fails within fifteen days after written notification from the county enforcement agent to obtain a license for a dog
required to be licensed...is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor. Dog owners must be given a 15 day warning.
www.edboks.com 31
Orange County, CA also provides basic driver education for those who drive municipal
vehicles.
Classroom training is used to provide information covering the current requirements of
State law, as well as Federal statutes and local ordinances. For example, canvassers
have the right to knock on doors, but homeowners also have certain rights to prevent
canvassers from entering or remaining on their property. Knowledge of these rights and
restrictions by canvassers avoids confrontations.
Customer service and `salesperson' skills are indispensable for canvassers. Delinquent
pet owners frequently have objections to making an immediate payment.83 Canvassers
must be able to convincingly articulate the reasons for licensing. These required
customer service skills are not gained by instinct. They are learned only through proper
training. King County, for example, recruits individuals with previous sales experience
and then spends another 40 hours in training.
Finally, canvassers should be provided with administrative training as needed. Required
administrative forms may include:
• Mileage reimbursement form;
• Pet owner receipt;
• Spay and neuter certificate;
• Citation;
• Field tracking sheet;
• Daily operations recap;
• Check deposit slip; and
• Cash deposit slip.
Training of all canvassers is essential and important to a successful canvassing program.
Basic Authority to Canvass
Successful local licensing programs typically possess two distinguishing characteristics:
canvassers have police powers and program oversight is maintained locally.
There is a difference in the job descriptions of a license inspector (with police powers) and
a canvasser (without police powers). Both have the same duty to provide information and
collect fees. However, an inspector is usually allowed to issue a license tag on the spot,
whereas a canvasser turns the paperwork into the licensing office and the licensing office
is responsible for issuing and mailing the tag. Animal License Inspectors are also typically
certified through the Penal Code authorizing them to issue citations to pet owners who do
not have a current, valid license. However, in Arizona, not all staff has to be certified
through the Penal Code to issue citations. For instance, animal control and code
enforcement officers can issue citations without being certified; perhaps the Town can
provide limited authority to canvassers to issue citations. This should be investigated as it
would lend considerable efficiency to a canvassing program.
83"The government doesn't need any more of my money,""I feed the dog, but it isn't mine,"or,"We're moving."
www.edboks.com 32
The most successful canvassing programs employ staff capable of issuing citations to
ensure dogs are licensed as soon as possible, return visits are limited, and costs are kept
low by minimizing unnecessary mail, paperwork and additional research by administrative
employees. Without citation authority, a canvasser can solicit a pet owner to comply with
the law, but they cannot impose any corrective or punitive incentive for the pet owner to
comply. As a result, another employee, usually an Animal Control, Code Enforcement or
Police Officer, has to return to the residence to ultimately enforce the law.
Successful agencies divide the jurisdiction into geographic areas for canvassing
purposes. Inspectors coordinate with canvassers developing a record of owners, block-
by-block for every neighborhood. These records are then used by the inspector in
subsequent periods to request renewal payments and updates. As a result, the rate of
mailed-in renewal payments is very high and the cost per license or renewal is very low,
and the need for (time-consuming and costly) follow-up visits to the owner's residence is
very low.
Productivity of canvassers is measured in terms of licenses generated in the field where
revenue payments are received in-hand, as well as revenue from both mailed-in license
renewals and payments made at fixed locations like Town Hall, veterinary offices, etc.
The more-successful canvassing programs track all three forms of payment and credit the
canvassing program.
Collections.
Collections can be increased with a concerted effort by code enforcement and police
officers who issue warnings and/or citations to every dog owner they see without a
license. The Town may even want to classify one week each month to concentrate on
licensing at city parks and on trails, similar to PD sobriety check points. Additional
collections should be received by using the Town attorney's letterhead to notify delinquent
owners of the penalty for failure to license their dog. Responsibility for dog licensing
should be included in the Performance Management Plan of every Oro Valley code
enforcement and beat police officer. On-line collections should be implemented as soon
as possible as this is the most cost effective collections method.
Effective Penalties
The most effective penalties are the ones that are enforced. During difficult economic
times, a late penalty will provide incentive to license a pet in a timely manner. Penalties
may also help reduce the number of delinquent notices mailed annually.
Finding: Canvassing should be seriously considered and if implemented, Town
Council has to stand fast and allow this enforcement tool to work. If upset constituents
have the power to kill the program it is better to not start. A legal opinion should be
sought to grant canvassers authority to issue citations.
Finding: Canvassing is not advised until after the program is established for two or
more years. This will allow the promotional campaign to enroll as many dog owners
as possible through voluntary compliance while at the same time the budget rollover
builds the necessary funding to make implementation practical.
www.edboks.com 33
Finding: Absent a Canvassing Program, Police Officers and/or Code Enforcement
must be held responsible for enforcement of dog licensing laws.84
Finding: Canvassers or a Volunteer Posse should attend every Town event to
distribute license information/warnings, etc.
Finding: A Canvassing Team comprised of three or four well-trained staff and/or
volunteers (Posse) would report to the Police Chief or his designee. Temps, part-time
or seasonal help can be hired to alleviate costs, as benefits are not included.
University of Arizona students may be prime candidates for this program. Canvassers
and/or volunteers should attend all Town events to pass out information on dog
licensing.
Finding: Town staff should continually evaluate and implement practical technological
options, promotional opportunities, and process improvement strategies. A well
promoted Licensing Program publicly embraced and endorsed by elected officials will
help increase voluntary compliance.
Finding: A Canvassing Team should work one or both weekend days and until 7 p.m.
on weekdays to catch people capable of purchasing a license at home and to cover as
much territory as possible during the autumn through spring months when inclement
weather is less likely to hamper efforts and when there is an increase in the numbers
of litters whelped in the spring. This will also ensure dogs belonging to "snowbirds"
are properly registered.
Finding: Canvassers must receive pertinent training that includes but is not limited to
safety standards; dealing with dangerous animals; using various animal control
devices; money handling; use of pertinent forms; basic self defense and/or personal
protection training; Health and Safety; Customer Service/Dealing with Difficult People;
Sales Force Motivation; Animal Related Laws; Administrative Procedures; basic driver
education, and pertinent Federal, State and local statutes, ordinances and laws.85
Finding: Ideally, the entire Canvassing Team should have the authority to issue
pertinent citations; at the very least, the Team Supervisor must have this authority.
Finding: Ongoing technical advances that enhance automated license collections in
the field that increase compliance must be evaluated and acquired as budget permits.
Finding: Canvassers and Town police officers must be dedicated to issue warnings
and/or citations to every dog owner they see without a license. One week each month
should be dedicated to concentrating on dog licensing at city parks and on trails,
similar to PD sobriety check points.86 Additional collections should be received by
using the Town Attorney's letterhead to notify delinquent owners of the penalty for
failure to license their dog.
Finding: The Town Prosecutor must be vigorous in obtaining appropriate penalties for
scofflaws. Pleadings that dismiss license violations should be sought sparingly.87
84 Quality of Live Goal#5:Maintain a safe community where residents feel secure.
85 Leadership and Communication Goal#4: Encourage and develop leadership skills and opportunities.
86 Quality of Life Goal#5: Maintain a safe community where residents feel secure.
87 ibidem
www.edboks.com 34
Cost Savings
Streamline billing and payments and the renewal process
Finding: As soon as the Town is able to implement on-line licensing, the Town must
publicize and encourage the use of online transactions. All licensing transactions
should be completed via the internet. Payment notices can be reduced to a postcard
or even an e-mail.
Finding: Require pet stores and veterinary offices to hand out license applications to
compliance improve license and reduce administrative and enforcement costs.88
p
Make applications available at banks and partner with banks to collect dog license
fees for the Town.
Integrate Licensing with Health, Safety and Welfare Goals
Finding: Integrating licensing with other Town Public Health, Safety and Welfare
goals will help create a culture of responsible pet ownership that will generate
incalculable savings in reduced dog bites, animal control calls, and shelter costs, etc.89
while increasing revenues through voluntary compliance.
Finding: Partner with local publicist firm or talented volunteer to develop a ubiquitous
dog licensing campaign for the Town pro bono.
Multi-Year License
The licensep eriod is determined by the validity of the rabies vaccination.90 Dog licensing
is essentially a rabies control program.91 The fact that rabies is as rare as it is today is a
tribute to the effectiveness of local animal control programs in the United States.
88 Economic and Financial Sustainability Goal#5:Cultivate healthy business relationships,opportunities and environment.
89 Town mission:Govern efficiently,inclusively and responsively to promote community health,safety and a sustainable quality of
life.
90 11-1008. License fees for dogs; issuance of dog tags; classification A. The board of supervisors of each county may set a
license fee which shall be paid for each dog three months of age or over that is kept, harbored or maintained within the
boundaries of the state for at least thirty consecutive days of each calendar year. License fees shall become payable at the
discretion of the board of supervisors of each county.The licensing period shall not exceed the period of time for revaccination as
designated by the state veterinarian. License fees shall be paid within ninety days to the board of supervisors. A penalty fee of
two dollars shall be paid if the license application is made less than one year subsequent to the date on which the dog is required
to be licensed under this article. If the license application is made one year or later from the date on which the dog is required to
be licensed, an additional penalty fee of ten dollars shall be paid for each subsequent year up to a maximum of twenty-two
dollars.This penalty shall not be assessed against applicants who furnish adequate proof that the dog to be licensed has been in
their possession in Arizona less than thirty consecutive days.
91 Rabies is always fatal if not treated. Each year,about 30,000 to 50,000 people in the world die of rabies. It is a large problem in
Asia,Africa, Central and South America, because victims may become infected through an animal that appears healthy and so
delay treatment. The latest statistics from the Center for Disease Controls and Prevention(CDC)cite the last human infection in
the U.S. in 2006. Every State in the Union requires counties and cities to protect the community by mandating that every owned
dog and cat be given a rabies vaccination by a state licensed veterinarian. The only way for cities to avoid being in violation of
State mandates is to require pet owners to vaccinate their dogs and cats. To ensure residents have complied with the law, cities
must require residents to license their pets with the stipulation they cannot license their pet without first supplying proof of rabies.
This is particularly important in Southern Arizona due to the close proximity to Mexico. Rabies in Mexico is a disease of
considerable importance, primarily because of the number of people that die of the disease and the number of human
vaccinations administered to prevent it,with the inherent risks involved(Journal of Wildlife Diseases,Vol.6, 1970,pg.243).
www.edboks.com 35
State law concerning dog licensing is applied as follows: An owner of a puppy from 3 to
12 months inoculated with a one year rabies vaccination may obtain a one-year license.
The owner of a dog over 12 months old that has been inoculated with a 36-month rabies
vaccination may apply for a one-year license. Thirty six months is currently the longest
period allowed by the State for rabies vaccinations.
According to the Pima County Code, each dog license issued by PACC expires one year
from the date of issuance, or on the date the rabies inoculation expires, whichever comes
first.
Many jurisdictions offer three-year dog licenses with an average discount of 10% for
owners who pay for three years. Several agencies acknowledged some confusion among
pet owners when this policy was initially adopted. However, those same agencies
explained that the confusion was resolved in time through public education. Dog owners
were encouraged to license for the maximum time frame. Licensing information was
posted on websites and in various locations frequented by pet owners and initially
announced with a big media splash.
TABLE SEVEN
Some Communities Offering Multi-year Licenses92
Location Altered Non-Altered Late Penalty
3 Year Fee 3 Year Fee
El Dorado County $35.00 $90.00 $15.00
Hesperia $30.00 $135.00 $10.00 - $25.00
Kern County $30.00 $150.00 None
Paradise $26.40 $52.80 $19.80
Rialto $33.00 $150.00 Unknown
Riverside $19.00 $150.00 $20.00
Roseville $28.00 $56.00 None
Sacramento (lncorp) $35.00 $150.00 $10.00 - $100.00
Sacramento(Un-Incorp) $45.00 $450.00 $100.00
San Bernardino County $45.00 $288.00 Various amounts
San Diego County $36.00 $72.00 $10.00
San Francisco $37.00 $74.00 $12.00
San Jose $39.00 $150.00 $15.00
South Lake Tahoe $22.50 $135.00 None
Ventura County $60.00 $150.00 100%
Avoidance of late penalties is an effective incentive for owners to license pets in a timely
manner.93 Almost 80% of the communities that offer a multi-year licenses also assess
late penalties. Late penalties range from a minimum of $10 up to 100% of the license
amount.
92 Los Angeles Animal Services STUDY OF THE DOG LICENSING PROGRAM,OCTOBER 2008
93 To work as an incentive and not a penalty, pet owners must be informed in advance. ARS 11-1008. License fees for dogs;
issuance of doq tags;classification E.Any person who knowingly fails within fifteen days after written notification from the county
enforcement agent to obtain a license for a dog required to be licensed...is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.
www.edboks.com 36
The biggest argument against multi-year licensing is ensuring information is updated
when people move, change phone numbers, and even e-mail addresses nowadays.
However, these problems are overcome when dog owners can update their information
automatically on-line. Other concerns include that it may be more difficult to tell at a
glance whether a dog is current on his license/vaccine. With one year licenses, you know
that all 'blue bells' are current, and 'gold stars' are last year's tag. With multi-year, it's
more shapes and colors to track, making ID at a glance a little trickier. Cons also include
loss of revenue over years two and three of the license. The Town would have to budget
and book revenue accordingly. Most communities discount a 3-year tag over the same
tag purchased yearly. This can also result in a loss of revenue, although small.
Pros include a decline in the yearly renewal workload enabling staff to concentrate on
issuing more new licenses; it is more cost effective to contact a dog owner and input
licensing data once every three years, rather than attempting to re-contact each owner
annually; savings accrue through reduced work hours, paper, printing and mailing
expenses; receiving three years of license revenue up front - revenue that is kept even if a
citizen moves out of the area or the pet dies; a multi-year tag is also perceived as a
convenience for the citizens, an "added value" to only have to license every three years.
Finding: Multi-year licenses would assist with streamlining the renewal process.
Enact a three-year license that is coterminous with the rabies vaccination expiration
date to reduce the yearly renewal workload enabling staff to concentrate on issuing
more new licenses and accrue savings through reduced work hours, paper, printing
and mailing expenses. A three-year license can be promoted as value added in the
Licensing Campaign.
Wildlife
Finding: The Town of Oro Valley pays Pima County for calls related to wildlife. This
practice should be reviewed. In other Arizona counties the Department of Game and
Fish respond to wildlife calls or they delegate calls to approved and licensed wildlife
rehabilitators.94 This is true for both incorporated and unincorporated areas. Oro
Valley paid for 14 wildlife calls which accounted for 13% of the Animal Handling Fee
charged to the Town. Some of these calls were dead animal pick-ups which perhaps
should be charged back to the Town.95 Pima County charged the Town $140.75 per
wild animal call or$1,970.50.
Owner Requested Euthanasia
Finding: The Town of Oro Valley pays Pima County for animals euthanized at the
request of Oro Valley pet owners. Oro Valley residents also pay $15 for this service.
This practice should be reviewed. Typically, this fee is paid by the pet owner alone.
Oro Valley paid for 19 Owner Requested Euthanasia charges which accounted for
17.6% of the Animal Handling Fee charged to the Town. Pima County charged Oro
Valley $140.75 per euthanasia or$2,674.26 plus $285 from Oro Valley residents ($15
each).
Together these two charges amount to$4,644.75 or 7.5%of the total Oro Charge cost for animal control.
94 List of Game and Fish referrals: http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/urban_rehab_relo.shtml#control
95 In Maricopa County the Department of Transportation provides dead animal pickup. Wildlife calls may include dead animal
pickup but not always. According to PACC they also include live animals such as bob cats,skunks and bats that require removal
from roads,yards or buildings.
www.edboks.com 37
Risks
One potential risk to taking on the responsibility of dog licensing is that OW
to contract with the Town of Oro Valley et00.0%•
Pima County could refuse0
I responsible for all animal control
L.
• cit 0 0 06
making the Town immediately p
responsibilities within Town limits. However, as of February 3, 2010, _ -
the PACC executive director committed "to continue, under an IGA, to
provide [field and shelter] services," using the existing model. That is, "Oro Valley would
continue to pay their share of enforcement, shelter and clinic services utilized during the
period."96 This commitment helps alleviate this risk.
Currently Oro Valley pays significantly less than the cost of one FTE (Full Time Employee)
when you consider salary, benefits, vehicle and equipment. For that cost the Town gets
all the benefits of a well equipped and trained animal control program with all the ancillary
support a county government can provide. A cost analysis that this consultant performed
for Maricopa County several years ago put the fully loaded cost of one Animal Control
Officer at $100,000 annually; this estimate is no doubt conservative today.
Even in light of the above cost benefit analysis, the benefits of Oro Valley managing an
effective dog licensing program locally outweigh continuing the status quo. Within the
existing animal control allocation, Oro Valley is able to initiate its own licensing program
and expand the program as needed using increased revenue generated by improved
license compliance. Properly promoted and enforced, the Dog Licensing program can
serve as a rallying cry for more community involvement and Town pride, becoming the
catalyst to making Oro Valley the safest and friendliest pet community in Arizona.
Transition Trauma: Another risk that can be anticipated and planned for is "Transition
Trauma". Some dog owners may be confused to one degree or another depending on the
effectiveness of the preemptive promotional campaign. It is important to initiate this
campaign as early as possible to ensure appropriate dog licensing information gets into
the hands of all Oro Valley dog owners before the program is enacted. Any confusion
existing among outliers may result in an initial decrease in the number of licenses sold as
some of these Oro Valley dog owners may mistakenly continue to purchase a Pima
County license until directly learning not to. However, if implemented effectively, an
informative promotional campaign could result in a spiked compliance increase.
An agreement with PACC to issue Oro Valley dog owners an Oro Valley license only
should be enacted.
There is some evidence that some dog owners living outside the incorporated area are
using Oro Valley as a mailing address, and PACC is accounting these licenses to Oro
Valley.97 When a new ordinance is enacted, and unincorporated area dog owners
continue to purchase Pima County licenses, Oro Valley will no longer get the benefit of
that revenue and the actual number of licenses sold may decline as a result.
96 Per PACC Executive Director Kim Janes via an email dated 2.3.2010
97 PACC Licenses Sold Report shows five low income fees in Oro Valley even though this fee is restricted to dog owners living in
the unincorporated areas according to the PACC website. This is evidence that there may be other dog owners in the
unincorporated area the Oro Valley is getting credit for because they are using an Oro Valley address.
www.edboks.com 38
Finding: Oro Valley is able to initiate its own licensing program and expand the
program as needed using increased revenue generated by improved license
compliance. Properly promoted and enforced, the Dog Licensing program can serve
as a rallying cry for more community involvement and Town pride, becoming the
catalyst to making Oro Valley the safest and friendliest pet community in Arizona.
Finding: An agreement with PACC to issue Oro Valley dog owners an Oro Valley
license only should be enacted.
it,*
. ., . ,t-' '
li ,
e ,,, r
1.
o .... .
,....,,, -
r : '-'
0.e I s 7
..„ .,
, .1. : .- 4‘
, ,,.. , tr„,,,,,„
• s , ,„, , , ,..„,,,, -,, _ _
,„ , . ,........??] ,,,,, ,
,,, , ,. ,,,, , , „ ,,,,,,,..., .,, ..,,
,.
6.,,,,,,,
-f 1. ,.., 4 . N
„ ,
k
' -'' ' ..- vot. -
* ' . .
1 4v;#0 ,
t
, ,,,,
x,i$,
S3
�
oke
1 4 k'
ilok 1%
I
iii, iii
., .,_ , ,
It# N .. , ., , , 4 ie
. . ,„
, ,,
.,
i R
._. _ + t
: ,,o ,,,
. {„.
i ',r..
www.edboks.com 39
FINDINGSC
Finding 1: The Town of Oro Valley has the legal authority to administer animal licenses
provided that the Town's ordinance is equal to or more stringent than State law. %'4
Finding 2: Despite the difficulties described in this Report, veterinarians can add value to
a Town Dog License program and help disburse the workload, provided their performance
is closely monitored and managed. Veterinarians can be paid a fee for each license sold.
The Town Council is probably the appropriate authority for establishing that fee. This
should be verified by the Town Attorney.
Finding 3: Oro Valley should enter into an agreement with the HSSA and PACC to sell
dog licenses for Oro Valley residents who adopt from their organizations.
Finding 4: Three out of four veterinarians are not interested in participating in a Town
Dog Licensing Program. The Town should initiate and administer the program out of
Town Hall. After the program is established the Town should recruit the willing
veterinarian to participate. After the veterinary model is proven, attempts should be made
to recruit the remaining three veterinarians. Eventually veterinarians in the immediate
surrounding area should also be recruited.
Finding 5: Contract license providers (PA CC, HSSA, veterinarians) must be held
responsible for ensuring licenses are issued to Oro Valley residents living within the Town
limits and that accurate information is obtained.
Finding 6: Licensing fees must be affordable and not punitive. It is okay to reward
owners who alter their pets with lower fees, but to punish owners with inordinately higher
fees for not altering their pets only drives them out of the licensing program.
Finding 7: The Town Hall clerical staff is able to take on this responsibility provided the
necessary human and material resources are allocated.
Finding 8: Oro Valley is an unusually pet friendly community. Town staff should enroll (or
mandate by ordinance) Apartment and Home Owner Associations to require dogs to be
licensed as a lease condition of occupancy. Dog parks should also be restricted to
licensed dogs only.
Finding 9: There is significant potential for increasing dog license sales. Benchmarking
found lower fees and a narrower differential accompany revenue and compliance
increases and lower shelter euthanasia rates.
Finding 10: If the Town of Oro Valley is interested in mitigating the euthanasia rate at
PACC more must be done to encourage greater understanding of breeds at risk among
landlords and property managers. Restricting entire breeds is not the answer.
Finding 11: Licensing must be decoupled from spay/neuter and leash law enforcement.
It is more important to register dog owners first and then educate on the benefits of spay
and neuter and leash law requirements. A divided focus hurts licensing compliance.
www.edboks.com 40
Finding 12: The revised Dog Population Estimate of 14,468 dogs reveals a tremendous
market opportunity for implementing a needed Dog Licensing Program. Over 70% of the
dogs in Oro Valley are unlicensed.
Finding 13: Although 28% is the U.S. average, some cities, towns and counties are
achieving rates as high as 38% and 40%. At 27.9%, Oro Valley is already at the national
average with no promotion or significant enforcement effort. A realistic stretch goal
initially for Oro Valley, an affluent, educated community, served with a well funded,
equipped and focused program is 40% by 2015 and 50% by the year 2020.
Finding 14: Fill the vacant Senior Office Assistant position and assign to the Oro Valley
Dog Licensing program, with other duties as required. With appropriate technological and
management support this part-time position can easily process 6,400 licenses a year and
much more with on-line licensing.
Finding 15: A License Program Strategic Plan should be developed as part of the ramp
up to implement a program that maps a course towards ever increasing compliance rates
by incorporating more robust technologies as budget permits, better customer service
methodologies and as appropriate penalties able to incentivize compliance.
Finding 16: The License program must include a donation component dedicated to
funding animal welfare events and education campaigns.
Finding 17: According to State Statute, Oro Valley must create a Separate Enterprise
Fund into which any revenue generated from a Town Dog License program must be
deposited. These funds must be used strictly for expenses relating to enforcement of the
animal control ordinance.
Finding 18: Sharing program costs with neighboring communities, like the Town of
Marana, would provide an economy of scale on web development and other facets of the
program (printing, training, etc.)
Finding 19: Limit capital expenses unless they can be justified as revenue generating
tools. Capitalize on any low cost or free option that can improve license compliance.
Initially, take on Licensing minimally. As license revenue and program confidence
increase, expand the program with more robust technology and staffing options.
Finding 20: Obtain software with accounting, financial and donation processing
functionalities that interface with the Town's financial management systems; software that
tracks, verifies, and reports on baseline statistics that measure performance. For the
purpose of budgeting, Chameleon Basic is proposed as a middle of the road cost for
initiating the program, however, the RFP process will ensure the best program for the
price, and the competitive process may reveal the Town can afford an on-line module
which will add real value for dog owners and increase revenue. Outsourcing should also
be seriously considered.
Finding 21: Canvassing should be seriously considered and if implemented, Town
Council has to stand fast and allow this enforcement tool to work. If upset constituents
www.edboks.com 41
have thep ower to kill the program it is better to not start. A legal opinion should be
sought to grant canvassers authority to issue citations.
Finding 22: Canvassing is not advised until after the program is established for two or
more years. This will allow the promotional campaign to enroll as many dog owners as
possible through voluntary compliance while at the same time the budget rollover builds
the necessary funding to make implementation practical.
Finding 23: Absent a Canvassing Program, Police Officers and or Code Enforcement
must be held responsible for enforcement of dog licensing laws.
Finding 24: Canvassers or a Volunteer Posse should attend every Town event to
distribute license information/warnings, etc.
Finding 25: A Canvassing Team comprised of three or four well-trained staff and/or
volunteers (Posse) would report to the Police Chief or his designee. Temps, part-time or
seasonal help can be hired to alleviate costs, as benefits are not included. University of
Arizona students may be prime candidates for this program. Canvassers and/or
volunteers should attend all Town events to pass out information on dog licensing.
Finding 26: Town staff should continually evaluate and implement practical technological
options, promotional opportunities, and process improvement strategies. A well promoted
Licensing Program publicly embraced and endorsed by elected officials will help increase
voluntary compliance.
Finding 27: A Canvassing Team should work one or both weekend days and until 7 p.m.
on weekdays to catch people capable of purchasing a license at home and to cover as
much territory as possible during the autumn through spring months when inclement
weather is less likely to hamper efforts and when there is an increase in the numbers of
litters whelped in the spring. This will also ensure dogs belonging to "snowbirds" are
properly registered.
Finding 28: Canvassers must receive pertinent training that includes but is not limited to
safety standards; dealing with dangerous animals; using various animal control devices;
money handling; use of pertinent forms; basic self defense and/or personal protection
training; Health and Safety; Customer Service/Dealing with Difficult People; Sales Force
Motivation; Animal Related Laws; Administrative Procedures; basic driver education, and
pertinent Federal, State and local statutes, ordinances and laws.
Finding 29: Ideally, the entire Canvassing Team should have the authority to issue
pertinent citations; at the very least, the Team Supervisor must have this authority.
Finding 30: Ongoing technical advances that enhance automated license collections in
the field that increase compliance must be evaluated and acquired as budget permits.
Finding 31: Canvassers and Town police officers must be dedicated to issue warnings
and/or citations to every dog owner they see without a license. One week each month
should be dedicated to concentrating on dog licensing at city parks and on trails, similar to
PD sobriety check points. Additional collections should be received by using the Town
www.edboks.com 42
attorney's letterhead to notify delinquent owners of the penalty for failure to license their
dog.
Finding 32: The Town Prosecutor must be vigorous in obtaining appropriate penalties for
scofflaws. Pleadings that dismiss license violations should be sought sparingly.
Finding 33: As soon as the Town is able to implement on-line licensing, the Town must
publicize and encourage the use of online transactions. All licensing transactions should
be completed via the internet. Payment notices can be reduced to a postcard or even an
e-mail.
Finding 34: Require pet stores and veterinary offices to hand out license applications to
improve license compliance and reduce administrative and enforcement costs. Make
applications available at banks and partner with banks to collect dog license fees for the
Town.
Finding 35: Integrating licensing with other Town Public Health, Safety and Welfare goals
will help create a culture of responsible pet ownership that will generate incalculable
savings in reduced dog bites, animal control calls, and shelter costs, etc. while increasing
revenues through voluntary compliance.
Finding 36: Partner with local publicist firm or talented volunteer to develop a ubiquitous
dog licensing campaign for the Town pro bono.
Finding 37: Multi-year licenses would assist with streamlining the renewal process.
Enact a three-year license that is coterminous with the rabies vaccination expiration date
to reduce the yearly renewal workload enabling staff to concentrate on issuing more new
licenses and accrue savings through reduced work hours, paper, printing and mailing
expenses. A three-year license can be promoted as value added in the Licensing
Campaign.
Finding 38: The Town of Oro Valley pays Pima County for calls related to wildlife. This
practice should be reviewed. In other Arizona counties the Department of Game and Fish
respond to wildlife calls or they delegate calls to approved and licensed wildlife
rehabilitators. This is true for both incorporated and unincorporated areas. Oro Valley
paid for 14 wildlife calls which accounted for 13% of the Animal Handling Fee charged to
the Town. Some of these calls were dead animal pick-ups which perhaps should be
charged back to the Town. Pima County charged the Town $140.75 per wild animal call
or$1,970.50.
Finding 39: The Town of Oro Valley pays Pima County for animals euthanized at the
request of Oro Valley pet owners. Oro Valley residents also pay$15 for this service. This
practice should be reviewed. Typically, this fee is paid by the pet owner alone. Oro
Valley paid for 19 Owner Requested Euthanasia charges which accounted for 17.6% of
the Animal Handling Fee charged to the Town. Pima County charged Oro Valley $140.75
per euthanasia or$2,674.26 plus $285 from Oro Valley residents ($15 each).
Together the above two Findings represent $4,644.75 or 7.5% of the total Oro
Valley Charge cost for animal control.
www.edboks.com 43
Finding 40: Oro Valley is able to initiate its own licensing program and expand the
program as needed using increased revenue generated by improved license compliance.
Properly promoted and enforced, the Dog Licensing program can serve as a rallying cry
for more community involvement and Town pride, becoming the catalyst to making Oro
Valley the safest and friendliest pet community in Arizona.
Finding 41: An agreement with PACC to issue Oro Valley dog owners an Oro Valley
license only should be enacted.
, * All. ' �,
x v . A a � � 7 ! _ '. Lv K
e
i,, - ,
f.,,m ,
4P { "
1( it., # . ,: 4 , ,
t i�
A 1 @
�' f
I .
x ,,,,,,,:! i
,;::,,, :, ,,, ,
{+ w
, .
e t
,,,
,,,,,,:. k , .
4001000#
w
\ NI '
4111fr 11.144, 416,
i _ltk
V''''
.0.,, - .. *. , , - - '4.111111111imi-t4'
www.edboks.com 44
Focus and Purpose of Town Dog Licensing Program
The purpose of a Town Dog License program is to increase the total number of dog
licenses sold and dog license revenue in order to more effectively promote and protect the
health, safety and welfare of Oro Valley's human and dog populations. An Oro Valley
program can be effectively implemented by following these steps:
Transition plan from the existing IGA to a Town-operated program
1. Communicate Town Council intentions with PACC immediately. PACC is a vital
partner to successfully transitioning this program responsibility to Oro Valley. PACC
has made it clear they want to help and support Oro Valley in this effort. Fountain Hills
(the only other successful town licensing program in AZ) also agreed to assist Oro
Valley.
2. Although the .63 FTE position may not be necessary to accommodate the volume of
licenses sold initially, filling this position will neutralize potential morale issues resulting
from the additional workload. The new employee can also help perform other duties
as required and assist the Public Information Officer (P1O) with the License Campaign
efforts described in paragraph 5 below. The net result is a happier clerical staff
positioned to generate a positive revenue stream through a successful program.
3. In this climate of fiscal austerity, Oro Valley should limit capital expenses unless they
can be justified as revenue generating tools. Based on research and in light of current
staff levels and budget decreases, the Town should try to capitalize on any low cost or
free option that can improve license compliance. Initially, take on Licensing minimally.
As license revenue and program confidence increases, expand the program with more
robust technology and staffing options.
a. Concurrent with recruiting the new clerk, obtain a software package with
accounting and financial tracking capability including donations processing with
interface capacity with the Town's financial management systems.
b. The software program must be able to track, verify, and refine baseline statistics
that measure the impact of animal care, spay/neuter and other public relations
initiatives on target populations.
4. Direct Town Attorney to draft an ordinance that establishes:
a. License expiration dates coterminous with rabies vaccination expiration dates.
This will alleviate a lot of confusion when dog owners apply weeks or months
following a rabies vaccination;
b. Authority for Town staff to prorate license fees to ensure a license is coterminous
with a rabies vaccination given earlier.
c. A three-year licensing option coterminous with rabies vaccination expiration dates
for dogs one year old and older.
d. Graduated penalties for late payment and willful nonpayment of fees;
e. A decrease in the single-year license fee to $50 for unaltered dogs;
f. Monetary penalties for submission of falsified license documents;98
g. Monetary penalties that effectively deter noncompliance;
98 In Calgary, a false declaration by an owner regarding the license of an animal carries a$500 fine. The agency also charges a
$250 fee for delinquent licenses.
www.edboks.com 45
h. Modify the requirement that veterinarians provide printed copies of rabies
vaccinations to the Department to the dog owner self certifies dog is vaccinated by
providingRabies Certificate Number and name and contact information of
veterinarian administering the vaccination to the Town, as done in Maricopa
County.
i. Ag race period that alerts constituents to the beginning day of enforcement of the
newro ram and explains Pima County licenses already issued will be honored
p g
until they expire at which time Oro Valley dog owners are required to purchase a
Town dog license. (Option: Pima County licenses purchased by accident can be
considered valid provided the dog owner also registers with the Oro Valley
program.)
J
Grants designated personnel the authority to issue pertinent warnings and
citations.
5. Assign Public Information Officer (PIO) responsibility/authority to create public
information outreach materials and programs for a dog licensing campaign. Possible
campaign slogans include: "My license is my ticket home!" or "If you love your dog,
you'll license your dog!"99 (Option: Pro bono assistance should be sought from a local
publicist firm. Maricopa County campaign materials may be available for use by Oro
Valley.)
a. Public/private partnerships should be sought to have pro bono ads placed in local
newspapers, publications, kiosks, airing via local broadcast media, and on Town
and partner web sites and bulletin boards.
b. Handouts and bumper stickers designed and made available on all Town point of
service desks/counters and at every bank, school, business and appropriate
bulletin board in town and distributed at all Town events.
c. Notices distributed through utility companies emphasizing dog bite prevention and
licensing.
d. Materials to be disbursed 60 to 90 days before enactment of the program
explaining the benefits of licensing. Fines should always be mentioned last.
e. If the Town of Oro Valley is intent on reducing the euthanasia rate in Pima County
a campaign to encourage greater understanding of breeds at risk at PACC should
be considered.
f. The Town should conduct frequent surveys to evaluate basic license program
performance data and customer (target population) satisfaction. A successful dog
licensing program has to have a good understanding of the characteristics of the
target population of dogs and dog owners.
g. Licensing can be promoted as an initiation fee to join the Oro Valley Dog Lover's
Club. A website featuring dog tips and information on responsible pet ownership
and events could be developed for Oro Valley dog license holders, creating a fun
virtual community.
6. Town Council proclamation, press release, and press event to announce initiation of
an Oro Valley Dog Licensing Program to begin on a date certain. Mayor and Council
to explain commitment to the integration of Town health, safety and welfare goals with
99 PACC realized a 28% increase in licensing last year with no promotion; even a modest campaign should generate enough
revenue to cover the growing annual Oro Valley animal control deficit.
www.edboks.com 46
new vision for Town dog licensing program (fewer bites, fewer animal related traffic
accidents, fewer shelter deaths, etc.) Oro Valley to be THE safest community in
Arizona for dogs!
a. Develop a fee-waiver policy in the annual budget such as granting the Town
Manager or Mayor authority to waive first-year licensing fees for altered dogs
adopted at Town-sponsored events or PACC;
b. Establish rewards for licensing such as policies that lost and Oro Valley licensed
dogs get (one per year?) free ride home if picked up by a Town or County
employee;
c. Include in the annual budget a recommendation to implement a widely-publicized
amnesty plan, especially targeted at owners of unaltered dogs, that for example,
waives penalties upon timely licensing of unlicensed dogs (perhaps partnering with
local veterinarians the amnesty period could provide opportunity to have the dog
altered at reduced price).
7. When the budget permits, a more robust license software program should be sought.
a. A program that provides online user access to reduce processing costs by allowing
an owner to self-certify and make online payment with auto-renewal authority (that
can include automated donations as well) without requiring any staff actions; and
b. Allows dog owners to update addresses, phone numbers, email addresses on-line;
c. Allows dog owners to make on-line donations which the software can track and
report on to be used to promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of pets
in Oro Valley.
8. The Parks and Recreation facility and police substations should be considered as
possible dog licensing centers when budget, technology and staffing permit.
9. After the Town Hall program is established, reach out to the one veterinarian who is
enthusiastic about making this program work. Start slow. Given the practical issues
of loss, confusion and delay identified in the Maricopa County experience, begin with
one veterinarian, and once the concept of a Veterinary Dog Licensing program is
proven, staff should begin to reach out to the other three local veterinarians.
Eventually, veterinarians in the surrounding area can be approached.
10. Once the Town has the IT capability, partnerships with local banks to accept dog
license renewal payments, including by automatic teller, should be sought.
11.When License revenue can support a Canvassing Program, one should be initiated,
perhaps comprised at first with well-trained volunteers (Posse) under the Police
Department.
12. Once a performance baseline is established, the Town can upgrade work performance
standards to meet or exceed the Town Council guidelines.
www.edboks.com 47
O
0
N
M 0 0
CO CO
I- I--
11
O
O
M
CO
Z
J a a)
W
Za)
o as w
a) _ c
la ce 1.E I CI.Vcm
I
Q. O i 4 O
I-- ,.., I ti- 3 rl. :(/)
Qv > E
i bw ca .c E
a-
c 2 = ' a
1.— O 0 cs J F W
Z O u) a `
Z N Q •"
Ct g‘ I- a
E v O L ,,c�
4:: (71)
4 1 ci)
,_ , (., Es. 4..
-U co6 ,.: O = DI, as
Q = 0 _ 0 O
'— 0
CL c v :.5
0 I— W ';0 C C
O � .0 03
N W cTS 2 _ Cl-
.
a. V .�- w _. ca
< •— I a,a ,� 0
_ LI 0. 18- o
E ce m O U
, a)0 Ce i (I) i 0 10 0 0
Supportive Plan of Expenditures
Below is a chart with the estimated Oro Valley human and dog population projections in
year 2015 and 2020. Based on these projections an estimated roll-out plan of
expenditures, that is, a proposed budget for the Oro Valley Dog Licensing Program is
provided. The proposed budget reveals the potential for generating large carryover
amounts. These carryovers should be used to initiate canvassing efforts as early as FY12
or FY13 in order to obtain the license compliance rates projected for FY15.
TABLE EIGHT
Pima County and Oro Valley Human Population Projections and Oro Valley
Dog Population Projections
Year10° PIMA COUNTY TOWN OF Projected OV
(DES projected) ORO VALLEY Dog Population
2010 1,070,723 45,199 14,468
2011 1 ,092,369 46,204
2012 1,113,749 47,209
2013 1,134,853 48,213
2014 1,155,599 49,218
2015 1,175,967 50,222 16,718
2016 1,195,933 51,005
2017 1,215,512 51,787
2018 1,234,697 52,569
2019 1,253,475 53,352
2020 1,271,912 54,134 18,020 .
100 The Arizona Department of Economic Security has published its official population projections for the State and all counties:
2006—2055.These forecasts conform to Pima County Control Totals adopted by DES in 2006,which were not approved by PAG.
PAG provides these data as a courtesy only and makes no claim as to their veracity.
www.edboks.com 49
Proposed Budget
REVENUE Proposed Fees FY11 FY15 FY20
Licenses
Altered $15 $48,300 $79,725 $107,415
Unaltered $50 $6,500 $10,750 $14,500
Senior/disabled altered $10 $6,570 $10,840 $14,500
Low Income altered* $8 $40 $64 $112
Senior/disabled unaltered $17 $646 $1,071 $1,445
Low Income unaltered* $27 $27 $54 $54
Transfer of Ownership $10
Duplicates $10
Penalties
Less than one year $10 $2,210 $3,650 $4,920
One-two years $22 $88 $154 $198
Over two years $36 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL REVENUES $64,381 $106,308 $143,144
EXPENSES FY11 FY15 FY20
Salary:
mid range($12.95-$19.43)
Senior Office Assistant $16.19/hr $22,562 $37,043 $40,410
Benefits based at 28% $6,317 $10,372 $11,315
Canvassing team costs to be determined
Operating Expenses:
Tags estimate .14/tag*4500 tags $630 $1,200 $3,420
.61 for tag; .44 for renewal (full
Postage first-class) $4,246 $7,690 $22,525
Office Supplies toner cartridges, paper, envelopes $300 $360 $432
estimated from fountain hills costs
Printing** +50% $900 $1,634 $2,685
From free up to$20,000 or more-
Computer software*** depending on need $12,500
based on 1 workstation and 1
Computer maintenance*** server $1,920 $1,920 $1,920
Media/promotional costs to be determined
Capital/Minor Assets:
1 PC/printer; may not be
Computing equipment necessary first year 2000 2000 2000
TOTAL EXPENSES $51,375 $62,219 $84,707
REVENUE COMMENTS:
FY11 -based on 14,468,28%compliance(4051 licenses)
FY15-based on 16,718,40%compliance(6687 licenses)
FY20-based on 18,020,50%compliance(9010 licenses)
EXPENDITURES COMMENTS:
*This fee currently applies to unincorporated citizens only;these are included because they were reported by Pima County to be in Oro Valley. Oro
Valley may choose to adopt these low-income fees or not.
**Printing costs will vary depending on public education campaign,frequency of late notices,canvassing,etc.
***Town will have to make determination on software package;this is based on the basic Chameleon package,which seems middle of the road in
pricing.
****Pima County did not provide actuals for FY09,so this is based on CY09 licenses sold.
www.edboks.com 50
00 AIN kit
4emi
*).1
Addendums:
The Fountain Hills Model
The only model in Arizona similar to what the Town of Oro Valley is investigating is
Fountain Hills. Fountain Hills is a smaller community with a current population of
approximately 25,500 people and a projected growth of 34,324 people at build out,
estimated to be in 2030.101 Oro Valley's population is 43,465.102
The population growth rate in Fountain Hills has also been slower than Oro Valley with a
growth rate from 2000 to 2008 of 23% compared to Oro Valley's 46% growth during the
same period. There are approximately 10,619 homes in Fountain Hills compared to Oro
Valley with 12,249 households. The median household income is $82,163 and the
median age is 48, in contrast to the Oro Valley which has a median household income of
$74,015 and a median age of 46.9. The average household size is 2.31 compared to Oro
Valley at 2.46.
The Town of Fountain Hills contracts with Maricopa County for animal shelter and animal
control services. Through an IGA Fountain Hills pays cost recovery fees to the County
per this schedule: $18,537 for animal control services plus $10/day for boarding, $25 per
animal euthanized, and $50 per animal impounded. The annual budget for animal control
is $30,600. These costs do not include the administrative costs associated with licensing.
The estimated annual revenue from dog licensing in Fountain Hills is $39,500 with
approximately 3,300 dogs licensed; compared with Pima County collecting $55,053 for
4,044 licenses in Oro Valley. Fountain Hills' license fees mirror Maricopa County's fees
($16 altered/$40 unaltered) although the ordinance gives the Town discretion to either
adopt the Maricopa County Animal Care and Control Fee Schedule, in whole or in part, or
amend the fee schedule as necessary to comply with the requirements of their animal
control ordinance. 103
Fountain Hills' provides its own dog licensing program because it provides residents with
a level of service that they appreciate and it allows Town officials to protect the public
health by making sure pets are vaccinated.104
The Fountain Hills Dog Licensing Program includes:105
• An IGA with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office who responds to barking dog
complaints for the Town.
• Licensing follow up is done initially by the Town of Fountain Hills Customer Service
Rep (mail notices) and then handed off to code enforcement for scofflaws.
• Town officials ensure the rabies vaccination is up to date on all dogs and they do not
issue a license beyond the period of the vaccination.
• Local law enforcement reunites licensed lost dogs with owners.
• Sharing license information with Maricopa County so they can also reunite owners
with lost pets.
101 Fountain Hills data found on Town of Fountain Hills website:http://www.fh.az.gov/economic-development/demographics/
102 Oro Valley data found at 2007 U.S.Census: http://www.census.gov/
103 Pima County has lower fees than Maricopa County and has separate fees for low income, senior and disabled citizens(fees
are$8,$10,$17 and$27).
104 According to Fountain Hills Finance Director,Julie Ghetti.
105 Ibid.
www.edboks.com 51
The Calgary Model
r•! '-'41111,` n �r="5 1111.1�. '�► �'1'.' I
_ �-t ter. /
The City of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, has a population of about 889,000. However,
Calgary's pet licensing administrators have been able to license 90 to 95% of the
estimated 105,000 dogs in their city.106
Calgary has reached this high compliance rate by following a simplified licensing system
where the purpose is getting pets and their owners enrolled in the system. In Calgary, no
rabies vaccination is required to process a license. Owners do not need to provide a copy
of spay/neuter certificates from licensed veterinarians to get reduced license fees.107
However, in Calgary, a false declaration by an owner regarding the license of an animal
carries a $500 fine. The agency also charges a $250 fee for delinquent licenses.
Even so, CAS' 90% compliance rate resulted from a long term and aggressive door to
door canvassing and public education program. CAS probably does more paid
advertising of services than any other animal control agency. CAS ads are ubiquitous: in
telephone books, on kiosks, among TV listings, in all the local newspapers, airing via
broadcast media, and on a web site. CAS handouts are also on the service desks at
every bank in town, and all the banks accept dog license renewal payments, including by
automatic teller. The major Calgary newspapers and utility companies distribute CAS
handouts, emphasizing dog bite prevention. It may not be possible to be in Calgary for 24
hours without seeing or hearing "Does your dog have a license?" in one form or another,
and with the question followed by a pitch on the advantages of licensing, like a free ride
home for any licensed dog found at large for 20 years. Avoiding a possible fine is always
mentioned last.108
With fewer requirements in Calgary, licenses can be completed using just a single page
application109 and payment of the appropriate fee. Revenue received above costs is
donated to the local humane society for animal training and humane education. The
official slogan is: "My license is my ticket home." Although CAS does not require dogs to
be vaccinated against rabies before issuing a license, this is a requirement that
significantly complicates and increases the cost of Arizona dog license programs.11°
g Y
While Calgary has the highest rate of licensing of any of the agencies reviewed, the City
of Chicago had the lowest licensing rate of about 3% in the year 2000.111
106 There is a reason why Calgary has far fewer dogs than the population should dictate,and that is Canada keeps pets at a rate
similar to the British ratio of about one dog per nine human residents, while the U.S. ratio is about one dog per five human
residents.
107 Provincial and local laws do not require proof of rabies vaccination or spay/neuter status as do Arizona laws and ordinances.
108 ANIMAL PEOPLE,October 2000: Why Calgary has almost as many off-leash parks as dog bites
109 Requests can be completed online, over the phone, through the mail, at a veterinarian office or in person along with
appropriate payment.
110 11-1008. License fees for dogs;issuance of dog tags;classification E.Any person who knowingly fails within fifteen days after
written notification from the county enforcement agent to obtain a license for a dog required to be licensed... is guilty of a class 2
misdemeanor. CAC is able to sell tags on site, whereas dog owners in AZ must receive a 15 day warning to vaccinate and
license a dog requiring enforcement agents to follow-up one or more times to ensure compliance.
111 Chicago's licensing program was voluntary and the agency has become more active and allocated more resources since
2000,the rate has increased as a result.
www.edboks.com 52
More on Calgar ,
By Merritt Clifton, ANIMAL PEOPLE editor112
An ANIMAL PEOPLE 2002 survey found that eight representative U.S. cities113 did not
find a relationship between high license compliance and kill rates.
However, an effective dog licensing program may refute that finding. Calgary Animal
Services (CAS) in Alberta, Canada, boasts a 90% dog license compliance rate and they
have reduced dog euthanasia to 3% of the dogs they impound (2004). Calgary only
euthanizes dogs who cannot be adopted because of aggression or non-correctable health
issues.
They return 88% of the dogs they impound to their homes thanks to licensing, and they
adopt out 9%. About half of the dogs they pick up go directly home. The savings
achieved by not bringing dogs back to the shelter is significant, both in monetary terms
and in making more productive use of staff time.
Additionally, they have reduced aggressive dog incidents by two thirds over 20 years
while the city doubled in size. Revenues exceed operating costs. In fact, Calgary Animal
Services has enough left over to give a quarter million dollar annual operating grant to the
Calgary Humane Society.
Calgary does not license cats, so they are not doing as well there. However, they still do
better than most. Their numbers on cats are 50% returned to owner, 31% adopted to new
homes, and 19% euthanized. Healthy adoptable cats are not euthanized. CAS works
with local humane groups and veterinarians on cat identification, seeking to reduce the
euthanasia rate for cats.
The Calgary licensing program works, unlike any other anywhere in the world, because it
is managed in a very different manner. The enabling legislation is similar to most U.S.
communities, but enforcement differs in two key respects.
One CAS innovation was that licensed dogs found at large initially got a free ride home.
Eventually a small service fee was added. People whose dogs escape tend to cheerfully
pay it; most would spend far more to try to find a lost pet, worrying all the while.
The other Calgary twist was that instead of trying to make licensing pay for itself from the
first license sold, Calgary priced licensing low and ubiquitously and positively promoted it
as an inexpensive public service to people who have dogs, attracting enough voluntary
compliance to make money on volume. Reminders to license are everywhere, always
selling the advantages instead of threatening with penalties.
The Calgary success, now sustained for many years, redefines "high licensing
compliance." Few jurisdictions anywhere can claim even a third of the Calgary licensing
compliance rate.
12 ANIMAL PEOPLE,September 2005: Editor's response to a letter"Calgary's Licensing System Works"in preceding issue.
13 Tucson,Chicago,Philadelphia,Seattle,San Francisco,Salt Lake City,Fort Worth and Milwaukee
www.edboks.com 53
Other communities claiming more than 30% licensing compliance usually get it through
door-to-door enforcement that rarely pays for itself, is hated by the public, and cannot be
sustained.
Of note is that contrary to the common belief that licensing increases the dog sterilization
rate, the percentage of U.S. dogs who are sterilized--more than two-thirds--is more than
twice the percentage who are licensed.
Calgary meanwhile returns dogs to their homes at an unheard-of rate. Many U.S. animal
control agencies manage to achieve 50% returns to home, with return rates typically
coming in around double the local licensing rate, but the dogs typically spend several
days in the shelter before being found. A 60% return rate is considered high, and most
animal control chiefs would consider 88% impossible.
www.edboks.com 54
Four Components of an Effective Dog Licensing Program
Excerpts from a Found Animal Foundation Study 14
1. A Sensible Policy Structure
a. "Honor" system for S/N & Rabies requirement at time of registration
(option to verify later, stiff penalties for falsifying license applications)
b. Reasonably affordable fee structure
c. Enforceable penalties for non-compliance
2. An Easy and Accessible Process
a. Automated and/or outsourced processing to minimize costs
b. Convenient process for the public to navigate with minimal paperwork:
c. Door-to-door license sales
d. Online system for first time licensing and renewal
e. License sales available at Town Hall, Veterinary Offices and other venues.
3. A Ubiquitous Education and Outreach Programs
a. Inform dog owners of licensing requirements, process, benefits, penalties
b. Utilize opportunities to publicize via city resources (DWP bills, signs on public
transportation, local media, etc.)
c. Programs to encourage registration (amnesty, discount, etc.)
4. A Consistent Neighborhood Canvassing Program
a. Door-to-door license sales
b. Distribution of educational materials
c. Database development of licensed and unlicensed dogs
d. Aggressive non-renewal follow-up
e. Notices to appear in court for non-compliance, fines, etc.
14 501c3 California based, Found Animal Foundation:A Licensing Overview,2009
www.edboks.com 55
-
- e,';-----,----,),;,;,,,,44.*::,,,, s -. f v• _ i 1f : -a- f'g' -,,,:-':;7,-,',,-.-,',,,,,,Y
zaY s'x td14.4
mf.'
d
i
yv 4 4
W
L' t:'E.,x' ,f'R .c
C 6-h
I
I
1
E It
: 1I
f 1�
I, 1
i j
11 t[
sf1
f
f '
i
it e
1
ti1 i • 1
1
1 i
, ,
E
Ili 11
Dog License Program
, I
, ,
II
11
,
, ,1 , eii
iIStudy as1
i
I i , i
II
,', I
1 ,
, ,
II
, ,
$._
1
t
1 1
., . .., .
, ,I
i
i _ i 1
3/24/2 010 - _ j i
I
By
ti
f
Ed Boks4,110- iiik
i
i i 1
H
1 i
11
t {
i {
f
s
! i i
1 I
E E
'
I
i
1 t 1
i s
i ! !
i
Ii
E
' i1
! f
I
i {{{
4 1 f
fin' 1 . - a,,..t ,
;44-
:...:
-': ,,.., , ' . ..,', ', i . !re..,': ,*:'''''.,:ri.;;'..:"'. - ' . .i',,:,,i':.,- 4', ' - ,•.-' ' '''''., '''-'
..
E
s.
.
�_... ,
----,-
'•
._ •.S".35
�-
-4.,...„__ _,. ..,_ , ,
�'�4
• ' —
----
''� r
,...,. ,,.. .,
- -
=1 - -,,,
,.. ...„
,:„. , , ,. 1,-• ,,,,k ,,, ' ,„
s� �� -li L � „s. a e s t v,,,„.,44---40,-:,;,-1,t,14.:',''-
.
;„ cam`.
r :" , . _ - ' -
-
•
t s `' + +�.7. .. �. „ , Wi, _ -.
t -4- �t,. 1 ..y� ; : - ` '',':::1::,..471i-'1 k.` ti `:,;'f.',--f-',i,..'''':''' -, r _-. 3., � -_. , �, . . i .T ¢ .,-. : ,aseli,< r4e= 1M ""° ' .. +r»��.r y. .�.'-'":',--,-17:'-''.''
" l. ,:;-:--,-'10.!,„.77'.,.:
• . - _ a �.., ":: s,.,-.+a ` ! : ,. na .•p.''„-.•'''':".'',.-''.;'t-'-', .,.,,;,,,,.,;4_,g.:4:4:',-..,
wv,. ' . � ' ^,, 1 -, . A.
:-_,--4,--
-rrra° . ,, ,
ylti
Tabie of Contents;
Executive Summary 5
Purpose of this Study 7
Stakeholders and Contributors 7
Current Status of Oro Valley Animal Control and Licensing 7
Two Staff Proposed Program Models 8
Model 1: Contract with Veterinarians 8
Lessons Learned from Maricopa County 8
The PACC Experience 9
Oro Valley Veterinarian Survey 10
Model 2: Town Hall to Sell Licenses 11
Staff Assumption: Oro Valley Dog Population 11
Spay/Neuter Programs 12
Landlord and Property Management Restrictions 12
Program Management and Policy 14
Modified Oro Valley Dog Population Estimate 18
Staff Assumption: Potential Revenue 19
Oro Valley Dog License Compliance Rate 21
Existing Revenue Sources 22
Potential Revenue Growth 23
Software Programs and Costs 25
Option One: MUNIS 25
Option Two: Chameleon 25
Option Three: Global Pet Search, Inc 27
Option Four: PetData® Services 27
Promotion and Canvassing Programs 30
Collections 33
Effective Penalties 33
11
Cost Savings 35
Streamline billing and payments and the renewal process 35
Integrate Licensing with Health, Safety and Welfare Goals 35
Multi-Year License 35
Wildlife 37
www.edboks.com 2
Owner Requested Euthanasia 37
Risks 38
FINDINGS 40
Focus and Purpose of Town Dog Licensing Program 45
Transition plan from the existing IGA to a Town-operated program 45
Supportive Plan of Expenditures 49
Proposed Budget 50
Addendums. 51
The Fountain Hills Model 51
The Calgary Model 52
Four Components of an Effective Dog Licensing Program 55
www.edboks.com 3
Reference Guide to Graphs and Tables
Graph One Oro Valley Human Population Growth
13
Graph Two PACC Activities in Oro Valley
13
Table One Affect of Fees on License Compliance and Kill Rates 14
Graph Three Pima County Dog Licenses Sold in 2009
14
Table Two Pima County Comparative Fees
15
Graph Four Oro Valley Dog License History 15
Graph Five Pima County Dog License History
16
Graph Six Los Angeles License History 17
Graph Seven National Survey Results on Number of Unaltered Dogs 19
Graph Eight Oro Valley Dog Licenses in 2009 19
Graph Nine Altered/Unaltered Dog License Ratios in Pima County 20
Graph Ten Tucson Dog Licenses in 2009 20
Graph Eleven Repeat of Graph Seven: National Survey Results 23
Table Three 2002 National Dog License Compliance Rate Survey 21
Table Four Classification/Compensation Comparison: License Clerk 21
Table Five Revenue Projections
24
Table Six Small Communities Outsourcing with PetData 28
Table Seven Communities Offering Multi-Year Licensing 36
GANNT Chart Execution Time Table 48
Table Eight Projected Human and Dog Populations 49
Table Nine Proposed Budget 50
www.edboks.corn 4
Exe ,th,G Smmr'
This Study examines the feasibility of the Town of Oro Valley assuming responsibility for
dog licensing within jurisdictional limits. Dog licensing is currently administered by Pima
County Animal Center (PACC). PACC sold 4,044 dog licenses in Oro Valley in Calendar
Year 2009. This represents a dog license compliance rate in Oro Valley of about 27.9%,
just shy of the U.S. national average of 28%. It is estimated that Oro Valley has a dog
population of about 14,468, which means over 70% of Oro Valley's resident dogs are not
licensed. However, over 10,000 of these dogs are probably spayed or neutered.
The question before the Council is whether the Town of Oro Valley can increase the local
license compliance rate and license revenue more effectively than PACC, - in a climate of
decreased staffing and budget levels while promoting more spay/neuter surgeries that
reduce revenue per license.
It is the finding of this Study that there does exist an opportunity for Oro Valley to increase
license revenue, the total number of licenses sold, and the percent of compliance within
Town limits, and that it is within the means of Town staff to do this provided they receive
the approval and support of the Town Council to proceed.
Assuming responsibility for managing dog licensing is consistent with Oro Valley's Mission
to govern efficiently, inclusively and responsively to promote community health, safety and
a sustainable quality of life. Licensing can be managed more efficiently and effectively at
the Town level, and greater numbers of Oro Valley dog owners can be registered in the
program. The licensing of more dogs is directly related to promoting community health,
safety and the quality of life. Most constituents today consider the family pet a member of
the family,1 and pets are increasingly included in community goals affecting health, safety
and welfare.2
Should the Town Council elect to assume responsibility for dog licensing, there are seven
characteristics3 that effective and successful licensing programs embrace that should be
incorporated into an Oro Valley Dog Licensing program. These characteristics are
consistent with Town Strategic Goals. They are:
1. Integration of dog licensing with Town health, safety and welfare goals and strategies
to establish licensing as a top priority;4
2. Elimination of barriers to licensing; providing ease and accessibility to dog owners;5
3. Software that allows flexibility and modifications as needed;6
According to a Human-Animal Bond Survey by The Hartz Mountain Corp. (Secaucus, N.J.) 75%of all pet owners consider their
pet part of the family. 80%of them said they would risk their life to save a pet's life, and almost half(45 percent)take their pet on
family vacations.And nearly one in three dog owners(31 percent)would take their pet to work if they could.
2 The Federal Pet Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act of 2006 (PETS Act) requires local governments seeking funds
from FEMA for disaster preparedness to include provisions for family pets in their plans for evacuation and sheltering evacuees.
This is one example of how Americans today consider pets a part of the family. Town Goals from the 2009 Oro Valley Strategic
Plan will be cited as appropriate throughout this report.
3 Los Angeles Animal Services STUDY OF THE DOG LICENSING PROGRAM OCTOBER 2008: Over 200 agency programs were
reviewed during a previous license study overseen by consultant.
Dog licensing promotes community health, safety and welfare goals and strategies by ensuring dogs are vaccinated against
rabies,are not allowed to run at large where they can cause accidents and bites, etc.
5 Economic and Financial Sustainability Goal#4: Ensure financial resources are available with a supportable level of community
services.
6 Community Infrastructure Goal #6: Maintain a high-speed data network to meet information storage and data management
needs to provide timely and accurate information.
www.edboks.com 5
4. Sufficient budget funding for outreach and pubic information programs;7
5. Mandatory licensing with reasonable, affordable fees;8
6. Penalties sufficient to deter noncompliance;9 and
7. A strong commitment to the humane treatment of animals by both Town leaders and
elected officials.1°
Effective and successful licensing programs dedicate higher levels of support and
allocations of resources in these seven areas. These characteristics are discussed within
the body of this Study and recommended strategies for effectively and successfully
assuming the responsibility for dog licensing are explained herein.
The format of this report follows the outline and direction of the Town's Request for
Proposals (RFP). Using feedback from community stakeholders, two program models
proposed by staff are assessed, followed by the evaluation of two staff assumptions. This
leads to a revised calculation of the Oro Valley dog population estimate and the
determination of a realistic dog licensing compliance goal. Existing and potential revenue
sources are identified followed by a Transition Plan from the existing IGA with PACC to a
Town-operated program. A proposed budget plan is also included.
It has been a pleasure working with the staff of Oro Valley and all the stakeholders
involved. If I can be of further service, please don't hesitate to call on me.
Sincerely,
Edward Boks
Quality of Life Goal #6: Provide diverse educational, informational and recreational opportunities and Leadership and
Communication Goal#1: Build trust through effective public outreach and communication.
8 Community Infrastructure Goal #2: Plan for and provide the necessary infrastructure to support community growth and
preservation.
Quality of Life Goal#5: Maintain a safe community where residents feel secure.
10 Leadership and Communication Goal#1:Build trust through effective public outreach and communication.
www.edboks.com 6
The purpose of this study is to assess the physical and financial resources required to
implement a dog licensing program in the Town of Oro Valley. Dog licensing is currently
managed at the County level. Information from this study may be used to guide Town
Council policy on dog licensing and management in the Town of Oro Valley. The format
of this study follows the format of the Town's Request for Proposals 1 (RFP). Study
findings are posted throughout the report and are also listed in their entirety on page 40.
Stakehoders and Contributors
I want to thank all the stakeholders and contributors for their time and
cooperation and for the valuable information and insights they provided
to this study. I especially want to thank the following individuals for
their help:
Mayor Paul Loomis; Council Member Salette Latas; Police Chief
Daniel G. Sharp; Town Magistrate, George A. Dunscomb; Town
Attorney, Tobin Rosen; Town Prosecutor, Tobin C. Sidles; Town
Communications Administrator, Mary K. Davis; Finance Director, Stacey Lemos; Interim
Human Resources Manager, Joe Andrews; Procurement Administrator, Brian Garrity;
Planning and Zoning Special Projects Coordinator, Scott Nelson; Senior Office
Assistants, Tracy Gransie and Barbara Harnisch; Pima County Animal Care Center
Executive Director, Kim Janes, Business Operations Coordinator, Edward
Taczanowsky, License Program Manager, Jennifer Neustadter, Shelter Managers,
Jayne Cundy and Robert Hendrix; Pima County Classification and Compensation
Manager, Colin Smith; Humane Society of Southern Arizona Operations Manager, Pat
Hubbard; Animal Welfare Alliance of Southern Arizona representative, Teri White;
Foundation for Animals In Risk representative, Tami Barrett; Maricopa County License
Program Manager, Peter Martin; Maricopa County Enforcement and Budget Director
(retired) Martha Bern; Fountain Hills Finance Director, Julie Ghetti and Accounting
Supervisor, Mary Martin; Wickenburg Animal Control Officer, Jeanna Burch; Los
Angeles Animal Services License Program Manager, John Forland; Oro Valley
Apartment Management Companies and Condominium Association Managers; and Oro
Valley veterinarians.12
Current Status of Ore Vaey Aa Control and Ucens'inc<
The Town of Oro Valley has an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Pima Animal
Care Center (PACC) for animal control and care services, including dog licensing.
Revenue PACC receives from the purchase of dog licenses by Oro Valley residents
serves as payment for these services. When service costs incurred by the Town exceed
the revenue from licenses, the Town uses money from the general fund to make up the
difference. In fiscal year 2007/2008, in addition to the $38,561 Pima County collected in
Oro Valley license fees, the Town paid $8,023 from the general fund, totaling $46,584
paid for all animal care and control services that year.13
" Request for Proposal For Animal Licensing Program Feasibility Study issued by Mary Davis,Communications Administrator
12 Contact information on Oro Valley veterinarians, apartment and condominium management was provided by Town Planning
and Zoning Special Projects Coordinator,Scott Nelson and Communications Administrator,Mary Davis
13 Source: Request for Proposal For Animal Licensing Program Feasibility Study
www.edboks.com 7
Twn Staff Propospl ProgyaLil
The Town of Oro Valley has the legal authority to administer animal licenses provided that
the Town enacts an ordinance that is equal to or more stringent than State law.14 Town
staff proposed two methodologies for the administration of licenses: 1) contract with local
veterinarians or 2) have Town staff issue licenses like they do business licenses. Staff felt
the "code allows veterinarians to retain $2 and remit the balance back to the Town".15
Actually, there is no mention of any authority to pay veterinarians $2 per license sold in
State Statute, County Ordinance or Town Code. Maricopa County Animal Care & Control
had a similar program several years ago and they obtained authority from the County
Board of Supervisors. Pima County Animal Center currently has a contract with 15
veterinarians to sells dog licenses;16 none of these veterinarians are in Oro Valley.
Y
Veterinarians in the PACC program receive $2 for each license sold.
At one time Maricopa County Animal Care & Control contracted with 170 veterinarians to
sell licenses. The veterinarians received a $2 fee per license sold. Maricopa County staff
found the program to be problematic in that it resulted in a six month or longer backlog.
Some of the problems encountered included veterinarians giving the wrong tag to dog
owners, losing tags, and submitting illegible paperwork, all of which required time
consuming staff follow-up to correct. Eventually the program was abandoned not because
of inefficiencies but because of a legal opinion. The Maricopa County Attorney's Office
opined the program was illegal because State law17 mandates only the County Board of
Supervisors can provide tags and that veterinarians cannot legally do so.
For the purpose of this Study, the Oro Valley Town Attorney responded to the above
opinion stating, "I believe the MCAO opinion was a bit too restrictive in its interpretation of
the statute. The statute requires only that a durable tag be provided. It does not
absolutely mandate that the County itself issue these tags. However, it seems that the
practical issues of loss, confusion and delay... identified in the Maricopa County
experience would militate against any person or entity other than the Town itself issuing
the tags."18
Maricopa County also experimented with a program that partnered with the Corrections
Department. This method was abandoned for security reasons. The effort to prevent
inmates from accessing confidential dog owner information resulted in numerous
redundancies and an unacceptable backlog.19
14 11-1018. Exemption of cities,towns and counties:A.The provisions of this article shall not apply to incorporated cities or towns
that impose a license fee and vaccination on dogs by ordinance, provided that such ordinance is equal to or more stringent than
the provisions of this article.
t5 The information in this paragraph came from the Request for Proposal For Animal Licensing Program Feasibility Study.
16 PACC Business Coordinator, Edward Taczanowsky, stated in an email dated 2.1.10 that PACC has the authority to enter into
such a contract on its own. List of participating veterinarians at: http://www.pimaanimalcare.org/services/doglicense_shots.asp
17 11-1008. License fees for dogs; issuance of dog tags; classification B. If the board of supervisors adopts a license fee, the
board shall provide durable dog tags. Each dog licensed under the terms of this article shall receive,at the time of licensing,such
a tag on which shall be inscribed the name of the county, the number of the license, and the year in which it expires. Maricopa
County Dog Licensing Manager, Peter Martin provided information on the Vet Licensing Program.
18 Source: Email from Oro Valley Attorney,Tobin Rosen.
19 Source: Martha Bern,former Director of Enforcement and Licensing with Maricopa County.
www.edboks.com 8
According to PACC20, the County's Veterinary License Program is generally operating within acceptable "parameters". Although they do state that "when you have outside
a job for you there is always going to be complications and problems."
people doing
PACC reports the program functions without significant delays. They have no problem
with lost tags because the veterinarians do not distribute tags, they only give the customer
a receipt and PACC sends out the tag. Unfortunately, PACC is unable to quantify the
percentage of licenses sold through their veterinary program which makes it difficult to
evaluate its true value.21 However, PACC does report the following problems with the
program. According to PACC participating veterinarians:
1. Do not accept applications from disabled or low income residents (only PACC staff
can do this);
2. Do not always verify if the customer is a senior citizen consequently overcharging
them for a license;
3. Do not always collect late fees as a "customer service" resulting in lost revenue;
4. Do not always get the breed of the dog, so staff has to follow up;
5. Do not always mark the dog as spayed or neutered although they only charge for an
altered license, requiring staff to call and verify. Sometimes the dog is altered and
they just did not mark it and sometimes the dog is not altered and they charged the
customer the wrong fee. If the latter, staff has to refund the money to the customer
and re-bill and reissue a license at the correct fee.
6. Do not always collect the correct fees for the different jurisdictions because they don't
have a computer system to verify jurisdictional fee differences.
7. Do not always ensure the license sold is coterminous with the rabies vaccination
expiration date, which requires staff to contact the customer to explain and resolve the
discrepancy.
8. Do not always get valid addresses, or they provide a physical address that is not a
mailing address, which results in tags returned and staff time to track owners down.
9. Obtain a different address than the address PACC already has in its database,
resulting in duplicate records which could hinder billing, returning lost pets and
sending out the tag.
The Humane Society of Southern Arizona (HSSA) also sells dog licenses for PACC and
affirmed they would continue to do so for Oro Valley for the $2 per license fee. One issue
sited by HSSA22 is that they find some Pima County residents are unclear as to what
jurisdiction they live in. This results in licenses being issued and credited to the wrong
jurisdiction. For instance, they explained some dog owners living in the unincorporated
portion of the county say they live in Tucson or some other nearby municipality. This
study also found evidence of dog owners living in the unincorporated area being included
in the Oro Valley dog license number.23
20 PACC License Program Manager,Jennifer Neustadter
21 PACC Operations Manager Ed Traczanowski reported staff is unable to determine this.
22 HSUS Operations Manager, Pat Hubbard
23 PACC Licenses Sold Report shows five low income fees in Oro Valley even though this fee is restricted to dog owners living in
the unincorporated areas. This is evidence that there may be other dog owners in the unincorporated area that Oro Valley is
getting credit for because they are using an Oro Valley address which may have some affect the 27.9%compliance estimate.
www.edboks.com 9
Oro Valley has four veterinary practices24 within Town limits. According to the Oro Valley
veterinarians, some Town residents take their pets to veterinarians outside Town limits.
The actual percentage of pet owners who leave Town for veterinary services is difficult to
quantify. However, the consultant found anecdotally that several members of the Town
staff take their pets to veterinarians outside Town limits. Not knowing which or how many
veterinarians provide service to Oro Valley residents would make a Veterinarian
administered program difficult to manage and many resident dog owners might not be
served. A solution to this problem is to allow both Oro Valley veterinarians and Town Hall
to sell licenses. This would also distribute the workload reducing Town staff costs,
provided the Town did not encounter similar difficulties articulated by Maricopa and Pima
Counties above or by an Oro Valley veterinarian below.
The veterinarians practicing in Oro Valley were asked about selling dog licenses for the
Town. One of the veterinarians had provided this service for Pima County several years
ago and found it to be "frustrating," stating s/he25 would "never do it again." Problems this
veterinarian encountered included not always being reimbursed or being reimbursed
months after the fact. This veterinarian stated the work involved was not worth the $2
s/he was sometimes paid; and s/he would not willingly do it again for any price.
The other three veterinarians have no experience selling licenses and two of them said
they would not be interested in participating in a Town program. However, one of these
two veterinarians felt s/he would be forced to participate if clients demanded this service
and that would not be a happy prospect. One veterinarian was adamant that the Town
would not be able to improve on Pima County's program although s/he admitted it needed
help too. S/he felt Oro Valley would have to allocate significant funding and commitment
to enforcement if a local dog licensing program was to be even minimally effective.
One veterinarian was enthusiastic at the prospect of selling licenses for the Town and
would happily do it for the $2. One veterinarian felt strongly that Oro Valley should be
responsible for all animal control services; however, the other three veterinarians had no
opinion on that matter.
Finding: The Town of Oro Valley has the legal authority to administer animal licenses
provided that the Town's ordinance is equal to or more stringent than State law.
Finding: Despite the difficulties described in this Section, veterinarians can add value
to a Town Dog License program and help disburse the workload, provided their
performance is closely monitored and managed. Veterinarians can be paid a fee for
each license sold. The Town Council is probably the appropriate authority for
establishing that fee. This should be verified by the Town Attorney.
24 Canada Hills Animal Hospital;Oro Valley Pet Clinic;Suffolk Hills Pet Clinic;Sun City Veterinary Clinic.
25"s/he"is used generically throughout this document out of respect for anonymity.
www.edboks.corn 10
Finding: Oro Valley should enter into an agreement with the HSSA and PACC to sell
dog licenses for Oro Valley residents who adopt from their organizations.26
Finding: Three out of four veterinarians are not interested in participating in a Town Dog
Licensing Program. The Town should initiate and administer the program out of Town
Hall. After the program is established the Town should recruit the willing veterinarian to
participate. After the veterinary model is proven, attempts should be made to recruit the
remaining three veterinarians. Eventually veterinarians in the immediate surrounding
area should also be recruited.27
Finding: Contract license providers (PACC, HSSA, veterinarians) must be held
responsible for ensuring licenses are issued to Oro Valley residents living within the
Town limits and that accurate information is obtained.
4Koieq own Hail - .
The Town Hall clerical staff stated that taking on the responsibility for issuing dog licenses
would require additional human and material resources. Town Hall staff currently includes
four clerks. Staff believes one additional clerk would be necessary to handle the current
4,044 licenses and an additional clerk(s) would be necessary if that number were to
significantly increase.
This study next assesses28:
1. Two Town staff assumptions
2. Existing revenue sources and potential for revenue growth and cost savings.
3. Focus and purpose of a Town dog licensing program along with supportive plan of
expenditures
4. Transition plan from the existing IGA to a Town-operated program
Staff Astrpton: Valley Dog Populatki48
Staff stated in the RFP that "According to the American Veterinary Medical Association
(AVMA), Towns of 45,000 people have an estimated 11,376 dogs."
The AVMA formula provides an approximation of dog populations and dog-owning
households. The AVMA states that because their formulas use sample survey data, they
should not be considered 100% accurate.29 The AVMA also explains that a more
accurate estimate can be obtained by using demographic data specific to the community
in question; and predicts rural states with large geographic areas and low population
densities will find higher rates of ownership while urban states with smaller geographic
areas and larger populations will find lower rates of ownership. However, the AVMA does
not provide specific data for regions within states, or for cities and towns - so other
authoritative sources must be sought.3°
26 Financial and Sustainability Goal #2: Develop a diverse revenue stream and #5: Cultivate healthy business relationships,
opportunities and environment.
2 Ibidem.
28 As directed in the Request for Proposal For Animal Licensing Program Feasibility Study.
29 AVMA:http://www.avma.org/reference/marketstats/ownership.asp#formulas
3° The AVMA states significant local or regional variations may exist and each community must examine those variations to
determine their local dog population estimate.
www.edboks.com 11
According to the 2006-2008 American Community Survey the population of Oro Valley is
about 43,465 and the average household is 2.46.31 The AVMA formula used in the Town
assumption was based on the 2006 U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey
which estimates 2.5 members per U.S. household. The AVMA directs local communities
to apply state or regional household data to determine a more accurate local dog
population estimate. Before plugging in the specific Oro Valley data to determine a more
accurate dog population estimate the local dynamics that often affect dog populations are
evaluated to determine if they should be weighted as determinative factors.
In many communities local spay and neuter initiatives have a significant impact on animal
p
populations. In Pima County the Animal Welfare Alliance of Southern Arizona (AWASA)
is perhaps having the greatest impact in this regard. AWASA is committed to increasing
the number of spayed and neutered animals in Pima County. They have been averaging
about 10,000 surgeries per year for several years. These surgeries are funded primarily
by PACC although other donations assist. However, AWASA reports32 that Oro Valley
was never a "targeted area" for spay/neuter efforts. AWASA defines a "targeted area" as
"underserved or economically depressed". PACC reported they have had no targeted
spay/neuter initiatives in Oro Valley either. PACC alters over 5,000 animals per year.
These are primarily animals adopted from PACC. The proximity of some AWASA and
PACC efforts suggests some Oro Valley residents and their pets may have benefitted and
fewer unwanted dogs may be the result. But this assumption is difficult to quantify and
there is no verifiable evidence that any of these spay/neuter efforts has had any direct and
meaningful impact on the Oro Valley dog population.
rl'r (KsfY qaop
ry Management R Gti
,
Another
factor that can affect local dog populations is Landlord and Property Management
restrictions on pet ownership. According to a report issued by The Foundation for
Interdisciplinary Research and Education Promoting Animal Welfare in 2005, 50% of all
rentals in a community typically prohibit pets. However, a survey of landlords and
property managers in Oro Valley found this to be decidedly not the case and actually
discovered evidence supporting an even higher dog population estimate than the one
projected by staff in the RFP.33
With 12 apartment complexes34 within Town limits providing 2,673 dwellings, all but one
complex allows dogs, and one allows only 10% of their units to have dogs which accounts
for 22 homes. This means 91% of Oro Valley apartments (2,434) allow up to two dogs35
per unit, making Oro Valley an unusually pet friendly community.
However, all the apartment complexes restrict specific breeds. All the complexes restrict
Pit Bulls and Rottweilers, while many restrict German Shepherds, Chow Chows, Sharpeis,
31 U.S. Census Bureau:http://www.census.gov/
32 AWASA representative Teri White.
33 Staff stated in the RFP that"According to the American Veterinary Medical Association(AVMA), Towns of 45,000 people have
an estimated 11,376 dogs.
34 Boulder Canyon at La Reserve(240),Catalina Crossing(97),Golf Villas at Oro Valley(231), La Reserve Villas(240), Oro Vista
Apartments (130), Pusch Ridge Apartments (144), Rock Ridge Apartments (319), Saddle Ridge (248), Sundown Village
Apartments (330), Sunnyslope Apartments (41 allows No Pets), The Overlook at Pusch Ridge (425), and Vistoso Vacation
Rentals(220 allows 10%or 22 units to have pets)
35 The fairly consistent 2 dog or more limits in Oro Valley apartments and Home Owner Associations supports an AVMA finding
that Arizona dog owning households typically average 1.9 dogs each.
www.edboks.corn 12
Dobermans, Great Danes, St. Bernards, Mastiffs and Akitas. Some even restrict Cocker
Spaniels and Boxers.
Oro Valley also has seven condo associations within Town limits, which represents 3,016
dwellings. All the condo associations allow dogs; one has a one dog limit, four have a two
dog limit, and two have no limit on the number of dogs allowed. Only one association
restricts dogs by breed; bully breeds36 and large breeds are not permitted.
Unfortunately, the breeds restricted by these organizations are the very animals most at
risk of euthanasia at PACC. Breed specific ordinances and landlord policies restricting
certain breeds have an adverse affect on minimizing pet euthanasia and unfairly punish
innocent animals and their owners.37
PACC only maintains three years of Oro Valley data as required by law.38 This is a
shame because the best and most effective animal control programs are data driven and
are able to asses and analyze trends and measure progress. Without data an
organization is forced to operate blindly. The good news is that PACC purchased a
shelter management software program over a year ago which will now allow them to
collect, manage and report on data as it is collected over the next years and decades
which should lead to a more effective and accountable animal care and control program.
GRAPH ONE GRAPH TWO
Oro Valley Human Population Growth 350 ----------- - - ---------- �-�� -
__� PACC Activities in Oro Valley327
44,000 ; __ _____
300
42,000 1- 250 4
200
183
,000
39,335 150 - ---�--
,
100
,2
108
50
38,000 38,280 �
36,000
0 -+
34,000 2007 2008 2009
2004 2005 2008 Calls =___- = ,Animals
The little data that is available confirms an escalating dog population. That is, as the
human population has increased over the past three years so has the number of calls for
animal control assistance and the number of animals handled by PACC, as seen in the
graphs above.39 The "Animals" statistics are a bit misleading in that they include wildlife
36 Bully Breeds are typically identified as American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT, also called a Pit Bull), the American Staffordshire
Terrier (AmStaff), the Bull Terrier (BT), the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Miniature Bull Terrier and the American Bulldog.
Rottweilers, Mastiffs and Boxers are sometimes included. PACC reports 7% of the Oro Valley dogs handled in FY08/09 were Pit
Bulls;which represents 8 dogs: two were adopted, three were returned to owner, two were euthanized, and one was an owner
requested euthanasia.
37 American Kennel Club Statement On Dangerous Dogs; and Breed-Specific Legislation in the United States by Linda S.Weiss,
Michigan State University College of Law(2001); and ANIMAL PEOPLE, March 2002: Dog and Cat Licensing Compliance, Costs
and Effects
38 PACC Business Coordinator, Edward Taczanowsky in an interview with consultant.
39 Human Population Data provided by U.S Census Bureau; PACC data provided by Pima County Health Department
www.edboks.com 13
and owner requested euthanized pets. Both of these categories are discussed in the Cost
Savings Section40 of this report.
Another influence on the number of dog
licenses sold in a community is program TABLE ONE
p g Affect of Fee on Compliance
management and policy decisions. For p
instance, there appears to be a Unaltered Dog License
relationship between compliance and West Midwest Northeast South
p $28.21
the cost of a license.41 The lowest $11.72 $9.72 $17.86
license fees, on average, are found in Altered Dog License
the Northeast, including New England, $10.50 $4.70 $4.58 $5.93
New York, Pennsylvania, and New Compliance Rate
Jersey, and these states have the 24% 28% 32% 10%
highest rates of licensing compliance. Kill Rate
The next lowest fees are found in the 11.8 12.8 4.5 21.6
Midwest, with the next highest rates of compliance. The highest fees are in the West
where compliance is only two-thirds of the rate in the Northeast.
Contrary to survey findings from the 1970s and 80s,42 GRAPH THREE
before the majority of owned dogs in the U.S. were
sterilized, it now appears that charging markedly higher Pima County Licenses
fees to license unaltered dogs creates more of a 2009
disincentive to license than it does to encourage people to
50000 , --- -
to the
get their pets fixed; as demonstrated by the graph
4 3450001 44967
right.
, q.. '
40000
As can be seen in Table One, the lowest average 35000
differential cost between unaltered and altered dogs is in
30000 —
the Northeast, which has the highest rate of licensing
,
compliance and a shelter killing rate44 less than half the 25000 -1 ;:
national average. The widest differential is in the West, 20000 -----
where shelter killing rates range from some of the lowest
15000 -- -------
in the U.S., along the West Coast (8.5), to some of the
highest, in the Southwest (15.2 . The next widest 10000 - -- --- -_____
differential is in the South, with the lowest licensing 5000 _ 3653
compliance and the highest shelter killing rates tending to1w-�
r 0 ...t
run double the U.S. norm.m. The Midwest, with a relatively Altered Unaltered
low licensing differential and relatively high compliance,
has shelter killing rates which mostly cluster just around ______ --I
the U.S. norms.45
4'
Cost Savings:pertinent paragraphs on Page 35
41 ANIMAL PEOPLE, March,2002: Dog&cat licensing compliance, costs, and effects ,,
42 Ibid.
43 The Arizona Daily Star-December 8,2002: Fewer dogs are being licensed—"More licensed dogs are sterilized but fewer dogs
are being licensed in Tucson since the City Council tried in 1999 to reduce the number of unwanted animals by charging more to
license unsterilized dogs."
44 Kill Rate = Number of dogs and cats killed in a shelter per 1000 human residents in a community. National Average is 13.8.
Pima County kill rate is 12.2(using Pima County human population: 1,022,112 and PACC 2009 euthanasia number: 12,563)
45 ANIMAL PEOPLE, March,2002: Dog&cat licensing compliance,costs, and effects
www.edboks.com 14
When we study the differential fees in Pima County we find the disproportionate number
of altered to unaltered licenses typical of programs with a markedly higher unaltered fee.
While evidence suggesting more dogs are being sterilized is presented later in this report,
we find fewer dogs per capita in Oro Valley are being licensed.
TABLE TWO
Oro South Tucson
Pima
Marana ValleySahuarita Tucson County
Population 35,796 45,100 26,274 5,829 553,006 356,107
Dog _ 11,915 15,013 8,746 1,940 184,088 118,543
Altered 2,580 3,214 1,548 58 39,386 36,952
Service Dog 2 5 1 2 96 70
Senior 431 651 271 21 6,961 7,860
Low Income 0 5 0 0 0 85
Iotad � '44,967
Altered
39013 3,x'75 1,820 2,02', 46,4143
Unaltered 206 130 117 13 3,080 2,718
Service Dog 2 4 0 0 50 19
Senior 41 34 20 15 986 869
Low Income 0 1 0 2 0 47
Tota ll S GS 137 3(}; 4,116 3,S63
Unaltered
Compliance 27% 26.9% 22% 5.7% 27% 41%
Differential $12/50 $15/60 $10/40 $11/45 $15/60 $15/60
Source for Human Population:AZ Dept of Economic Security 2010 projection as opposed to the 2006-2008 American
Community Survey population estimate used elsewhere in this report.
Source for Dog Population estimates:AVMA formula using AZ specific household data provided by US Census Bureau
and dogs per household data provided by AVMA.
Source for Dog Licenses: PACC Licenses Sold Report—March 2009 through February 2010.
For instance, Graph Four demonstrates GRAPH FOUR
that while licensing appears to be 1
increasing, license compliance is
Oro Valley License History
actually less today (27.9%) than it was 5000 ;
in 2003 (31%).46 4000 — - - -
__ _�4269
3792 _ 3516
3000 - -2968 2745 — 285-
There is more to an effective licensing2279 '
2000 ,
program than trying to manipulate
1000 .____._ _____....___-________.___..�.__.__...---___-____.._._.__..__.___.______-___._
desired behavior through punitive fees. F
0 Education, promotion, convenience and ,
enforcement are the components of a 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
successfulro ram. �.. �_._...�___�__..w.._..___ �_�..wY,_.._:..��.._. .�_a��. �_. .__ �_
p g
Regulations of any kind seldom succeed unless a majority of the people or institutions to
be regulated are already voluntarily in compliance or willing to become compliant with
46 2003 estimate was calculated using the 2003 U.S Census human population estimate of 36,653, dog population estimate of
12,201 and the number of licenses sold that year per PACC was 3,792.
www.edboks.com 15
relatively little enforcement. If more than a small percentage object to a regulation enough
to become scofflaws, enforcement becomes overwhelming, and the regulation eventually
tends to be ignored or repealed.
Graph Four shows Oro Valley experienced a 40% decline in licensing beginning in FY
03/04 followed by an 87% increase since FY 06/07. Both of these incidents occurred with
no license program promotions or campaigns or unusual enforcement efforts. This
suggests many Oro Valley dog owners are willing to license their dogs, and many more
might be if they clearly understood the value of licensing and that it is a legal requirement.
Without a strong and clear message to license, many people won't and license
compliance will ebb and wane. Also, compliance isn't just about cost. It's about
convenience. The easier it is to license the higher the compliance rate;47 but people have
to see the value of a license.
PACC data pertaining to this subject goes back to 2001. The County implemented a $60
differential fee in 1999. Graph Five shows that following several years of growth the
program suddenly declined 11% starting in 2005, followed by a 13% increase in 2007 and
2008 and then another 9% drop in 2009. No one at PACC, or any of the stakeholders
interviewed for this report, was able to shed light on the reasons for these fluctuations.
Neither could anyone link any licensing campaign, promotion or enforcement efforts to
either the increases or the decreases.48
GRAPH FIVE
Pima County Dog License History
115000
110000 111110 111522
10g5-05
/ 1{
105000 �- 105947
104223
101640 102786
101652
100000 s
98592
95000
90000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
2009
These types of cycles are not uncommon. For instance, LA Animal Services, which has a
much longer recorded data history, experienced many up and down fluctuations over the
years. What is different is the ability to explain these fluctuations.
4'Found Animal Foundation:A Licensing Overview,2009
48 ANIMAL PEOPLE March 2004: "Tucson impressively halved its killing rate in the five years following the implementation of a
$60 differential fee but the licensing compliance rate fell because efforts were focused on improving sterilization rates instead of
selling licenses."
www.edboks.com 16
LA Animal Services Annual Reports GRAPH SIX
(dating back to 1975) attribute license LA License History
increases to public information and
enforcement, and declines to efforts being PERCENT OF ALL DOGS LICENSED
redirected to ensuring animals were 60.00% -- — --- - ----- --
spayed or neutered rather than licensed.49 (1987)67%
Successful licensing programs do not
have a divided focus. When LA was
boasting a 57% compliance rate, thes""\
50.00% Li_-=-� "
licensinglaw was being enforced byrN,Ae v
/
canvassing over 65% .
s.
of all the
households door-to-door every year.
There was also a strong canvassing
follow-upprogram. If an owner did not `�,.
40.00%
respond to either the first or the second
notification to renew, an officer (Animal
License Inspector) personally visited the (2002) 36%
owner at the owner's residence. Owners
had the expectation that they would be
required to comply. Scofflaws were 30.00%
discouraged from trying to evade the law. 1960 1980 2000
Finding: Licensing fees must be affordable and not punitive. It is okay to reward
owners who alter their pets with lower fees, but to punish owners with inordinately
higher fees for not altering their pets only drives them out of the licensing program.
Finding: The Town Hall clerical staff is able to take on this responsibility provided the
necessary human and material resources are allocated.50
Finding: Oro Valley is an unusually pet friendly community. Town staff should enroll
(or mandate by ordinance) Apartment and Home Owner Associations to require dogs
to be licensed as a lease condition of occupancy.51 Dog parks should also be
restricted to licensed dogs only.
Finding: There is significant potential for increasing dog license sales. Benchmarking
found lower fees and a narrower differential accompany revenue and compliance
increases and lower shelter euthanasia rates.
Finding: If the Town of Oro Valley is interested in mitigating the euthanasia rate at
PACC more must be done to encourage greater understanding of breeds at risk
49 Los Angeles Animal Services STUDY OF THE DOG LICENSING PROGRAM OCTOBER 2008;The overall decline in dog licenses is due
to a decreasing dog population resulting from nearly 40 years of aggressive spay/neuter programs.
5°Financial and Economic Sustainability Goal#4: Ensure financial resources are available with a supportable level of community
services
51 Economic and Sustainability Goal#5:Cultivate healthy business relationships,opportunities and environment.
www.edboks.corn 17
among landlords and property managers. Restricting entire breeds is not the
answer.52
Finding: Licensing must be decoupled from spay/neuter and leash law enforcement.
It is more important to register dog owners first and then educate on the benefits of
spay and neuter and leash law requirements. A divided focus hurts licensing
compliance.
t ed Oro V i:ey Dop Populaton
Having reviewed the various dynamics that might influence the Oro Valley dog population,
we can now confidently plug the specific Oro Valley data into the AVMA formula.53 When
we do, we arrive at a 27% higher dog population estimate than the one resulting from the
national AVMA formula cited in the Town RFP.
Oro Valley Human Population (43,465) divided by the Average Oro Valley
Household (2.4654 or 17,668) multiplied by the Arizona Percentage Estimate of Dog g
Owning Households (43.1% or .431 or 7,615) multiplied by the Arizona Estimate of
Dogs Per Household(1.9) equals an estimated dog population of 14,468.
Finding: The revised Dog Population Estimate of 14,468 dogs reveals a tremendous
market opportunity for implementing a needed Dog Licensing Program. Over 70% of
the dogs in Oro Valley are unlicensed.
52 Quality of Life Goal #6: Provide diverse educational, informational and recreational opportunities; American Kennel Club
Statement On Dangerous Dogs; and Breed-Specific Legislation in the United States by Linda S.Weiss, Michigan State University
College of Law(2001); and ANIMAL PEOPLE, March 2002: Dog and Cat Licensing Compliance, Costs and Effects
53 U.S. Pet Ownership&Demographics Sourcebook, 2007 Edition,American Veterinary Medical Association, 2007, page 20/21.
The AVMA estimates 43.1%of all households in Arizona own an average of 1.9 dogs.
5a Ibid
www.edboks.com 18
Staff' j to s-4. .J urn i p tl 3 u [' Th
In the RFP, staff stated, "According to the American Pet Products Manufacturing
Association, 28% of owned dogs are not spayed or neutered. Thus, Oro Valley has an
estimated 8,191 altered dogs and 3,185 unaltered dogs. If we charge the current County
fee for licenses,55 and we obtain near 100% compliance, Oro Valley could collect up to
$313,965 in license fees. However, some of this revenue would be needed to purchase
equipment to take over the animal care and control services."
The American Pet Products Association GRAPH SEVEN
(APPA) estimate came from a mail survey National Surveys on Unaltered Dogs
sent to a consumer panel of 1,000 120% .
households nationally. A PETsMART
y
Charities survey released in May 2009 100%
--
sampled 3,000 dog owners nationally; which 35/80% /
is considered a good sample size and fairly I
predictive. A Humane Society of the United r 60%
States (HSUS) random-digit telephone
survey in March 2009 sampled a smaller 40% ' 72% 70% 65%° _.
number and restricted participants to the F20J
%
Louisiana/Mississippi region. Regional results
pp g g
were extrapolated to calculate a national 0% - -- —,---
estimate. All are good studies with results in APPA HSUS PC
a similar range. The PETsMART Charities Altered Dogs .Unaltered Dogs
study estimates 35% of a I I dogs are
unaltered. The HSUS study estimates 30% are unaltered. 56
Another indicator sometimes used to help determine the GRAPH EIGHT_
number of altered and unaltered dogs is the ratio of altered to Oro Valley Dog
unaltered dog licenses sold. However, in communities with a Licenses 2009
significant differential fee some owners with unaltered dogs are 4500 - ----- -
reluctant or resistant to paying the higher unaltered dog license 4000 3-875
--
fee.57 In these communities, this ratio may only serve to
3500 -�-------
obfuscate the attempt to calculate a realistic dogpopulation
p p p3000
estimate because as pointed out earlier, "charging markedly
higher fees to license unaltered animals appears to create a 2500 �--- -_ ---
� ' -- - --- -
disincentive to licensing,� among unaltered dog owners.58 This 2000
certainly appears to be the case in both Pima County (Graph
1500 r -
Three) and Oro Valley whenyou consider the significant 1000 T----..
fluctuations (Graph Five) in dog licensing since enactment of 500 --�--- --rs
the $60 dog license differential fee for unaltered dogs and the 0 _
lopsided sale of altered to unaltered licenses as demonstrated Altered Unaltered
in Graphs Eight, Nine and Ten.
55 Pima County Dog License fees are $15 for altered and $60 for unaltered, however Pima County has different fees for low
income residents($8 and$24)and senior and disabled citizens($10 and$17).
56 HSUS Study: Messaging Spay/Neuter, Lessons from the Gulf Coast Spay/Neuter Campaign, March 2009; PETsMART
Charities: Barriers to Pet Adoption and Spay/Neuter Services,May 2009
5'ANIMAL PEOPLE,March 2002: Dog and Cat License Compliance, Costs and Effects
58 Ibid.
www.edboks.com 19
GRAPH NINE GRAPH TEN
1
Altered/Unaltered License Ratios -2009 Tucson Dog Licenses
4500 2009
3875
4000 --- ________.__._.__________. ___._-- -_-- 50000 46443
45000
3500
3013 40000 -..
3000
35000
-
2500 c
2021-----__. I
2000 f - __1-$2Q__ -__ -- _ 25000
20000
1500 - -
15000
1000
� 10000 -�-
4116
500 249 tes 137 5000
30
' 1
Marana Oro Valley Sahuarita S. Tucson ? Altered Unaltered
Altered 1� Unaltered
If the APPA estimate is correct, and using the adjusted dog population estimate for Oro
Valley (14,468), then an estimated 4,051 dogs in Oro Valley are unaltered and the
estimated 10,417 remaining dogs are laudably altered. If the current County dog fees for
altered and unaltered licenses are established in the Town of Oro Valley up to $399,315
could be collected if 100% compliance was achieved and if there are no discounted fees
for low income, senior and disabled residents as are currently permitted in Pima County.
If the same Pima County fee discounts are applied to the Oro Valley program then we
might expect the following reduction to this estimate:
.12% (5) altered service dog fee $8
.12% (5) altered low income dog: fee $10
15.25% (651) altered senior citizen dog: fee $10
.09% (4) unaltered service dog: fee $17
.02% (1) unaltered low income dog: fee $27
.80% (34) unaltered senior citizen dog: fee $17
(For a total of $7,273)
When the results of the three national surveys are averaged together the estimated
number of unaltered dogs could be as high as 31% or 4,485 dogs. If accurate, this could
result in a revenue stream of $418,845 if a 100% compliance rate could be achieved.
Again, if the same Pima County discounts applied to the Oro Valley program this amount
would be less.
Determining a realistic license compliance rate goal for Oro Valley is discussed next.
www.edboks.com 20
Or�."�'� _,pt�"+', t'(F, .�� t fit;Fes\ '�"r4 C S 4. (; �..rsi.. ��' Ott,�-+�, �P {tk,a'i'�"4�-'a .:
o 4s�alie�� Dog Uc.ens l,-oH .s� 4�; e,cdad. .. +.
e� °ate
With 4,04461 dog licenses and a dog population of about TABLE THREE
14,468, Oro Valley has a 27.9% license compliance rate; 2002 Lic.
which is just shy of the U.S. average of 28%. According Survey59 Rate
to ANIMAL PEOPLE editor, Merritt Clifton, who Pima County6° 41%
conducted the only available national dog license Lincoln 40%
compliance survey (2002), data assembled since that Chicago 25%
time has continued to fall within the same range, that is, Philadelphia 25%
verifiable compliance rates typically averse 28% p
p yp y g . Seattle 25%
Maricopa County has a 28% rate, Los Angeles a 38% San Francisco 15%
rate, and Pima County, AZ and Lincoln, Nebraska at 41%
Salt Lake City
13%
and 40% respectively are the highest verifiable rates in Fort Worth 10%
U.S. communities today.62
Calgary Animal Services
in Alberta, Canada reports a 90% compliance
Milwaukee 10%
(CAS) p p
rate.6i And Chicago was at 3% in 2000. U.S. Average 28%
While 40% appears to be the high end of achievable compliance, communities can
achieve higher compliance rates by adopting strategies that include: 1) A Sensible and
Focused Policy Structure, 2) An Easy and Accessible Process, 3) A Ubiquitous Education
and Outreach Program, and 4) A Consistent Neighborhood Canvassing Program.64
Town staff asked if dogs belonging to Oro Valley's "large snowbird population" which may
"be licensed... outside of this region" would "impact to the final compliance estimates."
According to the Arizona Department of Commerce, "snowbirds" (defined as people livin
in Oro Valley less than six months a year) are not included in population estimates.
However, "snowbirds" residing in Arizona for more than 30 consecutive days66 in a year
would be required to license their dog with Oro Valley -- suggesting the actual number of
dogs to be licensed may actually be higher67 than the report estimate.
Finding: A realistic stretch goal for Oro Valley, an affluent, educated community is
40% by the year 2015 and 50% by the year 2020.68
59 ANIMAL PEOPLE, March 2002: Dog and Cat Licensing Compliance, Costs and Effects
6o Applying specific Pima County data found that Pima County may have the highest known compliance rate in the U.S.
61 PACC Calendar Year 2009 Licenses Sold and Late Fees Report
62 According to ANIMAL PEOPLE editor Merritt Clifton,who conducted the 2002 survey and has been assembling data since,the
Lincoln rate is attributed to the 28 year career of the former Animal Control director, Jim Weverka, who is said to have known
every dog in town; a stable department, in a stable community, working through word of mouth. Even the student body at the
University of Nebraska is mainly from Lincoln and elsewhere in Nebraska,so the extreme transience that usually afflicts university
towns was much less an issue. Clifton suspected Pima County's high compliance rate was due to underestimating the dog
population,however,this study's findings suggest the high compliance rate is valid.
Calgary Animal Control credits law enforcement for this success but does not take into account the role of education and
salesmanship. Former executive director of CAC, Jerry Aschenbrenner, invested 25 years of effective salesmanship before the
current administration took over ten years ago. Salesmanship put law enforcement into position to be effective. However,there
are significant differences between the Canadian and US program requirements. While we can learn from the Calgary model we
cannot compare apples to apples. More on the Calgary model can be found on page 50
64 Los Angeles Animal Services STUDY OF THE DOG LICENSING PROGRAM,OCTOBER 2008 found LA had a 57% compliance rate in
1975 and Calgary has a 90% compliance rate today following these principles; California based, Found Animal Foundation: A
Licensing Overview,2009 confirms this finding.
65 According to AZ Dept.of Commerce State Demographer William Schooling
66 ARS 11-1008. License Fees for Dogs; Issuance of Doq Tags; Records; Classification A. The board of supervisors of each
county may set a license fee which shall be paid for each dog four months of age or over that is kept, harbored or maintained
within the boundaries of the state for at least thirty consecutive days of each calendar year.
67 Town staff provided an unscientific estimate of 20%"snowbird"population influx during the winter months.
68 At 27.9%, Oro Valley is at the national average with no promotion or significant enforcement effort. By applying recommended
strategies Oro Valley should quickly recover its 2003 compliance rate of 31%and then achieve a rate equal to Pima County.
www.edboks.com 21
Existing revenue from licensing is $38,561 (see Table 5 on page 24). Additionally, the
Town of Oro Valley has one .63/FTE (up to 25 hrs/wk) vacant Senior Office Assistant
position with a budgeted compensation range of $12.95 to $19.43 plus an average 28%
benefits package.6g This position is comparable to the Pima County licensing clerk
positions (8) which are classified as Office Support Level III (OSL3), and are also part-
time (20 hrs/wk) and have a compensation range of $12.47 to $17.45 plus an average of
28.1% for benefits.7°
TABLE FOUR
Pima County Existing Oro Valley
Licensing Clerk Vacant Position
Office Support Level Ill (OSL3) Senior Office Assistant
part-time (20 hrs/wk) .63/FTE (up to 25 hrs/wk)
$12.47 to $17.45 $12.95 to $19.43
28.1% benefits package 28% benefits package
There is also a Senior Office Assistant on staff at the Parks and Recreation facility, which
is an ideal dog license selling location. However, staff feels this position is already
functioning at maximum capacity and would be unable to take on this added responsibility
even with additional compensation.71 Police substations should also be considered as
neighborhood friendly locations for selling dog licenses, however, when asked about the
availability of Police substations and staff to sell dog licenses, Oro Valley Police Chief
stated, "We are in the process of evaluating service cuts that could affect hours of
operations. At this time I would have to say we do not anticipate having the ability to sell
dog licenses at our substations."72
Maricopa County has 15 FULL-TIME license clerks processing 340,000 licenses annually.
According to HLP Chameleon, a well trained clerk should be able to process one license
every three to five minutes. In addition, Maricopa County purchased the automated HLP
Chameleon WebLicensing program capable of processing six licenses per second or
21,600 every hour. This module allows dog owners to purchase new or renewal dog
licenses on-line and prints a receipt for fees and donations on their personal computer.
Maricopa County makes over $10,000 a month in license related donations. This program
still requires staff to mail the license tags out. However, the Chameleon Data Processing
(CDP) module is another upgrade that is fully automated and even mails out the license
tags, renewal notices, and reminder notices automatically. PACC has 8 PART-TIME
license clerks processing 100,000 to 110,000 licenses annually using the Chameleon
Basic program which does not have the on-line functionality.
Fountain Hills has one FULL-TIME Customer Service Representative which serves as an
intake person for all Town payments (including business and dog licenses). This position
is also responsible for the follow up on delinquent dog licenses which is typically referred
69 Although funding exists for the vacant position, the proposed budget suggests funding be taken from the animal licensing
revenue to ensure staff does not lose this position for its intended use. Cross-training will ensure adequate coverage during times
of vacation, illness, etc.
70 Pima County Classification and Compensation information: http://www.pima.gov/hr/benefits.html
71 Source: Oro Valley Finance Director
72 Source: Email to consultant
www.edboks.com 22
to Code Enforcement. The position is currently filled by two PART-TIME people so no
benefits apply. The Customer Service Representative Range is $14.20 - $20.19.
Fountain Hills processes about 3,300 licenses annually and they do not provide on-line
service.
Finding: Fill the vacant Senior Office Assistant position and assign to the Oro Valley
Dog Licensing Program, with other duties as required. With appropriate technological
and management support this part-time position can easily process 6,400 licenses a
year73 and much more with on-line licensing.
Finding: A License Program Strategic Plan should be developed as part of the ramp
up to implement a program that maps a course towards ever increasing compliance
rates by incorporating more robust technologies as budget permits, better customer
service methodologies and as appropriate penalties able to incentivize compliance.
Finding: The License program must include a donation component dedicated to
funding animal welfare events and education campaigns.
Finding: According to State Statute, Oro Valley must create a Separate Enterprise
Fund into which any revenue generated from a Town Dog License program must be
deposited. These funds must be used strictly for expenses relating to enforcement of
the animal control ordinance.74
Potential ReverkuiL,
When the results of the three national
surveys on the number of unaltered dogs GRAPH ELEVEN
in the United States, shown in the Graph to National Surveys on Unaltered Dogs
p 1200/0
the right, are averaged together the
number of unaltered dogs could be as high 100% s. I
as 31% or 4,485 dos. If accurate, this
g ° TSbo --
reveals a possible revenue stream of 80/°
$269,100 for unaltered dogs and $149,745 60%
for the 9,983 altered dogs for a potential of
$418,845 if a 100% compliance rate 40% ' 72% 70% 65%
This amount would
could be achieved. 20%
be lower if Oro Valley enacted low income, ,
senior and disabled fees that mirror Pima 0% J -- u- -- .----
County fees or enacted fees different from APPA HSUS PC 1
Pima County. Altered Dogs rE Unaltered Dogs 1
73 2080 hours per year, less 80 holiday hours, less 80 hours (2 weeks) vacation/sick combined = 1920 hours per FTE. The
vacant senior office assistant position is.63 FTE which would be .67* 1920*5=6432.
74 11-1008. License fees for dogs; issuance of dog tags; classification D. All fees and penalties shall be deposited in the rabies
control fund pursuant to section 11-1011; 11-1011. Rabies control fund A. The board of supervisors (Town Council)shall transmit
the monies collected under the provisions of this article to the county (Town)treasurer for deposit in a special fund to be known
as the rabies control fund to be used for the enforcement of the provisions of this article and the regulations promulgated
thereunder. The county(Town) treasurer shall maintain the fund. B. Any unencumbered balance remaining in the rabies control
fund at the end of a fiscal year shall be carried over into the following fiscal year.
www.edboks.com 23
Potential revenue growth will be determined by the technological and human resource
capacities brought to bear. An effective program will require a robust software package
with accounting, financial and donation processing functionalities that interface with the
Town's financial management systems. Promotion and enforcement are also important
components that will be discussed later.
Technology is the backbone of a successful program. Four packages are reviewed in this
report; two software programs and two outsourcing options. However, there are many
other options available. An RFP process will help ensure the best program is found to
meet the needs of Oro Valley. Another benefit of the competitive process is that it may
discover a vendor able to deliver on-line functionalities at an affordable price. On-line
functionality should be made part of an Oro Valley Dog Licensing program at the earliest
possible opportunity. Prices in this report are estimates and Town staff will have to work
with vendors for an exact quote.
TABLE 5: TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
LICENSE REVENUE PROJECTIONS
Current Revenue Proposed
Fees - FY09* Fees FY11 FY15 FY20
Licenses
Altered $15 42058 $15 $48,300 $79,725 $107,415
Unaltered $60 6767 $50 $6,500 $10,750 $14,500
Senior/disabled altered $10 5678 $10 $6,570 $10,840 $14,500
Low Income altered* $8 36 $8 $40 $64 $112
Senior/disabled unaltered $17 487 $17 $646 $1,071 $1,445
Low Income unaltered* $27 27 $27 $27 $54 $54
Transfer of Ownership $10 $10
Duplicates $10 $10
Penalties
Less than one year $10 1788 $10 $2,210 $3,650 $4,920
One-two years $22 84 $22 $88 $154 $198
Over two years $36 $36 $0 $0 $0
Totals $56,925 $64,381 $106,308 $143,144
*Pima County did not provide actuals for FY09, so this is
based on CY09 licenses sold.
There was a total licensing revenue of$38,561 for FY08, and an additional $8,023 paid by Oro Valley to
Pima County for FY08—total $46,584.
FY11 -based on 14,468, 28% compliance (4051 licenses)
FY15 - based on 16,718, 40% compliance (6687 licenses)
FY20- based on 18,020, 50% compliance (9010 licenses)
www.edboks.corn 24
is used by Fountain Hills and is the same software program that the
Town of Oro Valley uses. Fountain Hills uses the licensing module for dog licenses. They
have some issues with the program stating, "It doesn't work as well as we would like".15
Fountain Hills reports that the transition from a County to a Town dog licensing program
was seamless as far as residents were concerned. However, they did struggle with the
implementation training from the vendor. Apparently Fountain Hills is the only city/town in
the nation that has purchased the dog license program from MUNIS.
The MUNIS module does not allow on-line processing nor does it take
credit cards. Fountain Hills is limited to a POS (Point of Sale) program to accept dog
license payments and issue receipts. They accept mailed in renewals and can run
applications and renewals through their credit card program (POS) and mail out the tag.
Oro Valley's IT Department will have to develop a program in ACCESS to accommodate
this function.
Pricing: Program Module - $4,500.
Training costs are about $2,350.
Annual support costs are $1,250.
Total: $8,150
provides three separate modules — Oro Valley can start with
Basic Chameleon. This program alone is capable of supporting a first-rate licensing
program. The Town can add on either the WebLicensing or the Chameleon Data
Processing initially or at a later date for a more dynamic and robust program.
Basic Chameic,. is a powerful program used by over 400 agencies nationwide. It stores
all of the information about animals, people, and rabies vaccinations (and anything else
an animal control program needs to track). Regardless of where the new or renewed
license information is coming from Chameleon is the repository. Chameleon also makes it
easy to retrieve information about licenses coming due, run reports to create renewal
letters, update records based on responses to the notices, and retrieve information about
licenses that have expired for follow-up. While Chameleon can facilitate this process it
does require staff to run reports, print and mail license renewals, and process the
responses to the renewals.
Chameleon Basic Software Pricing:
One-time fee of $9,800
Annual fee of$1,920 (estimated 1 server and 1 workstation, add @$960 each)
Training $2,700 (3 days onsite)
Initial Price for Chameleon Basic: $14,420
75 Fountain Hills Finance Director,Julie Ghetti suggests Oro Valley staff talk to her before investing in this module.
www.edboks.com 25
is an add-on that allows a dog owner to use the
information from the license renewal notice to renew the license online. It is aq uick
process that allows owners to pay with a credit card immediately. It saves time by
updating any transaction that happened with WebLicensing automatically in Chameleon,
reducing the amount of mail and check payments that staff need to process. The site
does the renewals, postage reminders, etc.
Chameleon with WebLicensing Add On
Basic Chameleon One-time fee of$9,800
Annual fee of$1,920 (estimated 1 server and 1 workstation, add @$960 each)
Training $2,700 (3 days onsite)
WebLicensing one-time fee of $10,000
Annual fee of $2,880 for 1st 10,000 transactions; then $0.35 per transaction up to 30,000
transactions, then $0.20 per transaction over 30,000 transactions.
Initial Price for Chameleon and Web Licensing (10,000 transactions): $27,300
allows for the outsourcing of many of the labor
intensive activities of a licensing program. This can also help avoid costly mailing and
data entry clerks. CDP will analyze the Chameleon database for upcoming renewals,
generate and mail renewal notices to patrons, receive and process payments remitted by
patrons by mail or WebLicensing, and even deliver a license tag if necessary. All of this
information is then seamlessly integrated in the Chameleon database, so the Town has
ready access to current license information. If the Town receives paper rabies vaccination
forms from local veterinarians,76 CDP can provide data processing for these forms, create
electronic records for the information, and integrate them into Chameleon. This can also
increase licensing compliance and revenue generated, as animals that are vaccinated but
not licensed are identified and their owners are sent notices advising them that their
animal is required to be licensed.
While this service can greatly reduce the cost of staffing salary and benefits this is not a
total outsourcing solution, as the customer service piece and over the counter license
sales responsibilities remain with Town staff.
Chameleon with Data Processing Add on
Basic Chameleon One-time fee of$9,800
Annual fee of$1,920 (estimated 1 server and 1 workstation, add @$960 each)
Training $2,700 (3 days onsite)
Data Processing One-time fee of $10,000 (discounted to $5,000 w/commitment)
Per transaction fees of$2.00 (estimated and only paid as transactions occur)
Initial Price for Chameleon and Data Processing Add On: $26,420
Annually thereafter with 1 workstation: $8,920
76 ARS 11-1010. Anti-rabies vaccination; vaccination and license stations A. Before a license is issued for any dog,the owner or
a veterinarian must present a paper or electronic copy or telefacsimile of the vaccination certificate signed by a veterinarian
stating the owner's name and address, and giving the dog's description, date of vaccination, manufacturer and serial number of
the vaccine used and date revaccination is due. A duplicate of each rabies vaccination certificate issued shall be transmitted to
the county enforcement agent within two weeks of the date the dog was vaccinated. No dog shall be licensed unless it is
vaccinated in accordance with the provisions of this article and the regulations promulgated pursuant to this article.
www.edboks.com 26
(GPS) — GPS is a dog identification program that
can be utilized as a turn-key dog license program that can track licensing, rabies
vaccinations and donations and includes a 24/7 trained live operator search and rescue
phone support system. Licenses can be purchased at Town Hall, local veterinarians, area
shelters, and online reducing Oro Valley administration costs.
An estimate for an initial "one-time only" set-up and web development fee inclusive of all
GPS features is $10,000. A monthly project management fee is estimated at $300- $400
a month for web hosting ($100) and Shopcart monthly fee ($35) and Live Operator Search
and Rescue Support Service fees. Tags cost $2.50 each including simple packaging and
instructions.
The Live Operator assistance program is designed to reunite lost pets with
owners mitigating the need for much of the Animal Control retrieval, booking, boarding,
medical and euthanasia costs. This is a very unique feature. This is a relatively new
service provider and Oro Valley specifications would need to be clearly defined. Unlike
the other programs evaluated, this one can be customized to meet Oro Valley needs,
according to the vendor.
GPS Cost Estimate: $31,000
su:r •t: Four:
o 1 P, tD ts0n S�+,E C
T,C offers:
1. Processing incoming mail;
2. Depositing revenue;
3. Entering licensing and vaccination data;
4. Mailing license tags;
5. Customer service to citizens, veterinarians, and agency staff;
6. Collecting and processing tag sales reports from authorized registrars;
7. Maintaining privacy of data according to applicable laws;
8. Mailing licensing notices and follow-up notices to citizens;
9. Offering online licensing with credit card payment.
PetData also provides employee pay incentives based on production. The company's
single focus on licensing and emphasis on production-based pay incentives are two
reasons local agencies with limited staffing authority or budget resources employ PetData
to increase both current compliance rates and revenue levels. According to the licensing
manager for the agency covering unincorporated Fulton County, Georgia, and the eight
surrounding municipalities including Atlanta, PetData has, "...vastly improved our
turnaround time for licenses, increased the number of animals licensed and freed up
several of our staff members so they can provide other services needed in our operation."
Small local agencies with staffing/budget limits that have opted to outsource with PetData
exist in a variety of sizes and organizational structures as shown in Table Six below:
wwwedboks.corn 27
TABLE SIX: Small Communities Outsourcing with PetData
City/County Public/Private Population City/County Public/Private Population
Antioch, CA Public Entity 100,000 San Luis Obispo Public Entity
County, CA 45,000
Brazoria Co. TX Public Entit 287 San Clemente, Contract with
y ,000 57,000
CA Private 501(c)3
Dana Point, CA Contract with 35 000 South Ogden,
Private 501(c)3 Utah Public Entity 78,000
Dupont, WA Public Entity 2,000 Steilacoom, WA Public Entity 5,000
Fairfield, CA Public Entity 100,000 Torrance, CA Public Entity 145,000
Lake Jackson, TX Public Entity 26,000 Vacaville, CA Public Entity 95,000
Lakewood, WA Public Entity 58,000 Vallejo, CA Public Entity 120,000
PetData attempts to manage the complete renewal collection service by providing the staff
and administration supplies (including receipts, applications, customized renewal forms,
and envelopes, but not the tags), preparing and issuing receipts, preparing monthly
reports, and collecting and depositing revenue.
PetData Base Fees:
The Standard Fees are not charged until the license is issued. Data entry of rabies
vaccination certificates and incomplete licenses, which may or may not result in a license,
are included at no extra charge. An agreed-upon method to follow-up with pet owners
who did not respond to a prior notice is also included at no additional cost. This structure
is designed to 1) ensure that PetData is working on behalf of the client to increase
licensing; and 2) provide the client with more control and certainty by establishing a set
price for results and not charging simply for individual tasks associated with licensing.
PetData does not charge additional fees for processing and entering, or mailing notices
for vaccination data. PetData is paid for all licenses issued during the contract period,
including those licenses issued by Animal Services, Veterinarians, and any authorized
registrars or agents.
• $3.85 per license for a one-year license or a replacement tag.
• $2.00 for each additional year after year one if there are multi-year licenses.
• $2.50 Collection Service Fee for each late fee collected during the term of this
Agreement, if applicable.
• $1,000 one-time only start-up fee.
www.edboks.com 28
For any online licensing provider there will be additional service fee costs. Oro Valley will
have to secure a merchant gateway. Vendors typically have "approved" gateways that will
not be charged by the vendor, but if an unapproved gateway is selected there would be
fees. Bank fees range from $2.50-$3.00. Some Licensing Programs pass these fees
along to the client and some absorb them. Chameleon reports one of their clients charges
a $5.00 fee to cover fully loaded administration costs. Merchant account fees can be
negotiated with banks.
Finding: Sharing program costs with neighboring communities, like the Town of
Marana,77 would provide an economy of scale on web development and other facets
of the program (printing, training, etc.)
Finding: Limit capital expenses unless they can be justified as revenue generating
tools. Capitalize on any low cost or free option that can improve license compliance.
Initially, take on Licensing minimally. As license revenue and program confidence
increase, expand the program with more robust technology and staffing options.
Finding: Obtain software with accounting, financial and donation processing
functionalities that interface with the Town's financial management systems; software
that tracks, verifies, and reports on baseline statistics that measure performance.78
For the purpose of budgeting, Chameleon Basic is proposed as a middle of the road
cost for initiating the program, however, the RFP process will ensure the best program
for the price, and the competitive process may reveal the Town can afford an on-line
module which will add real value for dog owners and increase revenue. Outsourcing
should also be seriously considered.
77 Assistant to the Marana Town Manager, Joshua Wright expressed interest in partnering with Oro Valley on a Dog Licensing
Program. Such a partnership is consistent with Oro Valley Community Infrastructure Goal #5: Partner with regional jurisdictions
to cooperate in the development and maintenance of quality infrastructure,as appropriate.
78 Infrastructure Goal#6:Maintain a high-speed data network to meet information storage and data management needs to
provide timely and accurate information.
www.edboks.corn 29
c U ct and anvi nPrograms
Oro Valley has a 27.9% license compliance rate which is just shy of the national average
g
(28%). Oro Valley may be able to achieve 40 or 50% compliance, maybe more. But it is
likely the Town is already near the high end of what can be done voluntarily without
promotion and enforcement.
A significant voluntary compliance increase can be achieved through a well orchestrated
media/promotional campaign. Dog owners in Oro Valley appear responsible in view of the
high percentage of spay/neuter and the significant number of licenses sold voluntarily.
Many Oro Valley dog owners may not be licensing for a variety of reasons. They may not
know it is required. They may think the rabies tag the veterinarian gave them is a license.
Unfortunately, not everyone pays attention to the paperwork veterinarians distribute, and
veterinarians don't always distribute it. Some dog owners just might not understand the
value of licensing their dog.
A campaign could reinforce a sense of Town pride, "We love our dogs, that's why we
license our dogs!" Bumper stickers could be placed on all town vehicles, signs posted as
appropriate, etc. There are many low cost ways of signaling to the community that there
is a sea change occurring regarding dog licensing. Partnering with local publicist firms to
develop PR campaigns pro bono should be looked into.79
However, the most effective means of indicating this new attitude is not inexpensive.
Effective licensing programs are typically associated with effective enforcement, and
effective enforcement usually requires door to door canvassing. The dilemma inherent
with canvassing is that while it can significantly increase license sales and revenue, it can
also upset constituents. There is a long history of effective door to door canvassing
programs being dismantled by elected officials who tired of getting upset phone calls from
outraged dog owning constituents.80 Effective canvassing programs require resolve and
commitment.
Most effective programs employ license canvassers.81 In Oro Valley, a Canvassing Team
of three or four should be sufficient. The Team could be comprised of well-trained
Volunteers (Posse) who report to the Police Chief or his designee, or temps, part-time or
seasonal help could be hired to mitigate costs, as benefits are not included. University of
Arizona students may be prime candidates for this program.
Most canvassers drive a municipal vehicle and are assigned to a specific area. A few
drive their personal vehicles and are reimbursed for mileage. To keep mileage costs
down, employees that drive personal vehicles may be assigned to areas closest to their
home. A specific geographic location to canvass is determined in advance. The software
package should be able to identify and provide a list of delinquent pet-owners currently in
79 A License Campaign was developed for Maricopa County pro bono by a National firm based in Phoenix. Oro Valley may be
able to use it.
8°Maricopa County in 1999, Montgomery County, Maryland in 1993 and Fort Wayne, Indiana in 1992 are three examples.
1 Orange County,Ventura County and Riverside County employ License Inspectors. Ventura's Inspectors are seasonal. City of
Los Angeles employs eight(8)canvassers and one enforcement officer. For 20 years, from the mid 1960's to the mid 1980's the
Department employed Animal License Inspectors who had full police powers and were considered professional enforcement
officers.
www.edboks.com 30
the database to canvassers. As the canvassers proceed through a neighborhood, new
pet-owners are identified and an attempt is made to issue a license for each dog.
The weekend is when most residents, responsible for payment, are most likely to be at
home. Canvassers from most jurisdictions work one or both weekend days. Cities and
counties employ full-time and part-time canvassers to cover as much territory as possible
during the spring and summer months when days are longer and inclement weather is
less likely to hamper efforts and when there is an increase in the numbers of litters
whelped in that period. Because of the summer heat, October through March is an
appropriate canvassing "season" for Oro Valley and this would still allow capturing the
most number of litters as well as educating "snowbirds".
During the off season, the full-time employees spend less time canvassing and handle
other duties as required. Part-time/limited term employees are released until the following
season.
The 2008 door-to-door campaign in Calgary ran from May to September. Multiple teams
were comprised of six college students and one Enforcement Officer. Residents are given
the opportunity to purchase and receive a license on the spot. Residents may also
choose to use on-line, mail-in or walk-in registration at a shelter within the next two weeks.
In two weeks, if the license has not been purchased, the enforcement officer returns and
issues a citation.82 Calgary animal control explained this approach is most successful
when preceded by a promotional campaign in the months preceding canvassing.
Canvassers are closer to door-to-door salespersons than police officers and interrelated
training is important. Local agencies often provide on-going training to maintain safety
standards. Canvassers will encounter dangerous animals and must carry and know how
to use various animal control devices. Canvassers occasionally carry large amounts of
cash and may encounter life-threatening situations. As a result, basic self defense and/or
personal protection training are offered by many agencies.
King County, WA and Riverside County, CA canvassing managers indicated that, in
addition to safety, a comprehensive training program for canvassers is essential due to
the level of knowledge and skills required. Both of these agencies have training programs
that include the following subjects as well as safety and personal protection:
• Health and Safety;
• Customer Service/Dealing with Difficult People;
• Sales Force Motivation;
• Animal Related Laws; and,
• Administrative Procedures.
82 This is actually a requirement of ARS 11-1008. License fees for dogs; issuance of dog tags; classification E.Any person who
knowingly fails within fifteen days after written notification from the county enforcement agent to obtain a license for a dog
required to be licensed...is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor. Dog owners must be given a 15 day warning.
www.edboks.com 31
Orange County, CA also provides basic driver education for those who drive municipal
vehicles.
Classroom training is used to provide information covering the current requirements of
State law, as well as Federal statutes and local ordinances. For example, canvassers
have the right to knock on doors, but homeowners also have certain rights to prevent
canvassers from entering or remaining on their property. Knowledge of these rights and
restrictions by canvassers avoids confrontations.
Customer service and `salesperson' skills are indispensable for canvassers. Delinquent
pet owners frequently have objections to making an immediate payment.83 Canvassers
must be able to convincingly articulate the reasons for licensing. These required
customer service skills are not gained by instinct. They are learned only through proper
training. King County, for example, recruits individuals with previous sales experience
and then spends another 40 hours in training.
Finally, canvassers should be provided with administrative training as needed. Required
administrative forms may include:
• Mileage reimbursement form;
• Pet owner receipt;
• Spay and neuter certificate;
• Citation;
• Field tracking sheet;
• Daily operations recap;
• Check deposit slip; and
• Cash deposit slip.
Training of all canvassers is essential and important to a successful canvassing program.
authority to Carer.:-
Successful local licensing programs typically possess two distinguishing characteristics:
canvassers have police powers and program oversight is maintained locally.
There is a difference in the job descriptions of a license inspector (with police powers) and
a canvasser (without police powers). Both have the same duty to provide information and
collect fees. However, an inspector is usually allowed to issue a license tag on the spot,
whereas a canvasser turns the paperwork into the licensing office and the licensing office
is responsible for issuing and mailing the tag. Animal License Inspectors are also typically
certified through the Penal Code authorizing them to issue citations to pet owners who do
not have a current, valid license. However, in Arizona, not all staff has to be certified
through the Penal Code to issue citations. For instance, animal control and code
enforcement officers can issue citations without being certified; perhaps the Town can
provide limited authority to canvassers to issue citations. This should be investigated as it
would lend considerable efficiency to a canvassing program.
83"The government doesn't need any more of my money,""I feed the dog, but it isn't mine,"or,"We're moving."
www.edboks.com 32
The most successful canvassing programs employ staff capable of issuing citations to
ensure dogs are licensed as soon as possible, return visits are limited, and costs are kept
low by minimizing unnecessary mail, paperwork and additional research by administrative
employees. Without citation authority, a canvasser can solicit a pet owner to comply with
the law, but they cannot impose any corrective or punitive incentive for the pet owner to
comply. As a result, another employee, usually an Animal Control, Code Enforcement or
Police Officer, has to return to the residence to ultimately enforce the law.
Successful agencies divide the jurisdiction into geographic areas for canvassing
purposes. Inspectors coordinate with canvassers developing a record of owners, block-
by-block for every neighborhood. These records are then used by the inspector in
subsequent periods to request renewal payments and updates. As a result, the rate of
mailed-in renewal payments is very high and the cost per license or renewal is very low,
and the need for (time-consuming and costly) follow-up visits to the owner's residence is
very low.
Productivity of canvassers is measured in terms of licenses generated in the field where
revenue payments are received in-hand, as well as revenue from both mailed-in license
renewals and payments made at fixed locations like Town Hall, veterinary offices, etc.
The more-successful canvassing programs track all three forms of payment and credit the
canvassing program.
Collections can be increased with a concerted effort by code enforcement and police
officers who issue warnings and/or citations to every dog owner they see without a
license. The Town may even want to classify one week each month to concentrate on
licensing at city parks and on trails, similar to PD sobriety check points. Additional
collections should be received by using the Town attorney's letterhead to notify delinquent
owners of the penalty for failure to license their dog. Responsibility for dog licensing
should be included in the Performance Management Plan of every Oro Valley code
enforcement and beat police officer. On-line collections should be implemented as soon
as possible as this is the most cost effective collections method.
Est,E G I`t I t
The most effective penalties are the ones that are enforced. During difficult economic
times, a late penalty will provide incentive to license a pet in a timely manner. Penalties
may also help reduce the number of delinquent notices mailed annually.
Finding: Canvassing should be seriously considered and if implemented, Town
Council has to stand fast and allow this enforcement tool to work. If upset constituents
have the power to kill the program it is better to not start. A legal opinion should be
sought to grant canvassers authority to issue citations.
Finding: Canvassing is not advised until after the program is established for two or
more years. This will allow the promotional campaign to enroll as many dog owners
as possible through voluntary compliance while at the same time the budget rollover
builds the necessary funding to make implementation practical.
www.edboks.com 33
Finding: Absent a Canvassing Program, Police Officers and/or Code Enforcement
must be held responsible for enforcement of dog licensing laws.84
Finding: Canvassers or a Volunteer Posse should attend every Town event to
distribute license information/warnings, etc.
Finding: A Canvassing Team comprised of three or four well-trained staff and/or
volunteers (Posse) would report to the Police Chief or his designee. Temps, part-time
or seasonal help can be hired to alleviate costs, as benefits are not included.
University of Arizona students may be prime candidates for this program. Canvassers
and/or volunteers should attend all Town events to pass out information on dog
licensing.
Finding: Town staff should continually evaluate and implement practical technological
options, promotional opportunities, and process improvement strategies. A well
promoted Licensing Program publicly embraced and endorsed by elected officials will
help increase voluntary compliance.
Finding: A Canvassing Team should work one or both weekend days and until 7 p.m.
on weekdays to catch people capable of purchasing a license at home and to cover as
much territory as possible during the autumn through spring months when inclement
weather is less likely to hamper efforts and when there is an increase in the numbers
of litters whelped in the spring. This will also ensure dogs belonging to "snowbirds"
are properly registered.
Finding: Canvassers must receive pertinent training that includes but is not limited to
safety standards; dealing with dangerous animals; using various animal control
devices; money handling; use of pertinent forms; basic self defense and/or personal
protection training; Health and Safety; Customer Service/Dealing with Difficult People;
Sales Force Motivation; Animal Related Laws; Administrative Procedures; basic driver
education, and pertinent Federal, State and local statutes, ordinances and laws.85
Finding: Ideally, the entire Canvassing Team should have the authority to issue
pertinent citations; at the very least, the Team Supervisor must have this authority.
Finding: Ongoing technical advances that enhance automated license collections in
the field that increase compliance must be evaluated and acquired as budget permits.
Finding: Canvassers and Town police officers must be dedicated to issue warnings
and/or citations to every dog owner they see without a license. One week each month
should be dedicated to concentrating on dog licensing at city parks and on trails,
similar to PD sobriety check points.86 Additional collections should be received by
using the Town Attorney's letterhead to notify delinquent owners of the penalty for
failure to license their dog.
Finding: The Town Prosecutor must be vigorous in obtaining appropriate penalties for
scofflaws. Pleadings that dismiss license violations should be sought sparingly.87
84 Quality of Live Goal#5: Maintain a safe community where residents feel secure.
85 Leadership and Communication Goal#4: Encourage and develop leadership skills and opportunities.
86 Quality of Life Goal#5: Maintain a safe community where residents feel secure.
8'ibidem
www.edboks.com 34
Cost savings
`tea �e.th%rte'•^�'.- �P°`°.,� l�� and
tt�s.. 'g renewal
.mac sx o�:, ,:.
qtr e Ell E r Ee �i r n payments a n _ the r Y'" ���a 'r c e
Finding: As soon as the Town is able to implement on-line licensing, the Town must
publicize and encourage the use of online transactions. All licensing transactions
should be completed via the internet. Payment notices can be reduced to a postcard
or even an e-mail.
Finding: Require pet stores and veterinary offices to hand out license applications to
improve license compliance and reduce administrative and enforcement costs.88
Make applications available at banks and partner with banks to collect dog license
fees for the Town.
qytecirate �' 'f``'k". -b t; Vii ' e.A.�r ',`� .. `" - • _
Finding: Integrating licensing with other Town Public Health, Safety and Welfare
goals will help create a culture of responsible pet ownership that will generate
incalculable savings in reduced dog bites, animal control calls, and shelter costs, etc.89
while increasing revenues through voluntary compliance.
Finding: Partner with local publicist firm or talented volunteer to develop a ubiquitous
dog licensing campaign for the Town pro bono.
The license period is determined by the validity of the rabies vaccination.90 Dog licensing
is essentially a rabies control program.91 The fact that rabies is as rare as it is today is a
tribute to the effectiveness of local animal control programs in the United States.
88 Economic and Financial Sustainability Goal#5:Cultivate healthy business relationships, opportunities and environment.
89 Town mission: Govern efficiently,inclusively and responsively to promote community health,safety and a sustainable quality of
life.
9° 11-1008. License fees for dogs; issuance of dog tags; classification A. The board of supervisors of each county may set a
license fee which shall be paid for each dog three months of age or over that is kept, harbored or maintained within the
boundaries of the state for at least thirty consecutive days of each calendar year. License fees shall become payable at the
discretion of the board of supervisors of each county.The licensing period shall not exceed the period of time for revaccination as
designated by the state veterinarian. License fees shall be paid within ninety days to the board of supervisors. A penalty fee of
two dollars shall be paid if the license application is made less than one year subsequent to the date on which the dog is required
to be licensed under this article. If the license application is made one year or later from the date on which the dog is required to
be licensed, an additional penalty fee of ten dollars shall be paid for each subsequent year up to a maximum of twenty-two
dollars.This penalty shall not be assessed against applicants who furnish adequate proof that the dog to be licensed has been in
their possession in Arizona less than thirty consecutive days.
91 Rabies is always fatal if not treated. Each year,about 30,000 to 50,000 people in the world die of rabies. It is a large problem in
Asia, Africa, Central and South America, because victims may become infected through an animal that appears healthy and so
delay treatment. The latest statistics from the Center for Disease Controls and Prevention(CDC)cite the last human infection in
the U.S. in 2006. Every State in the Union requires counties and cities to protect the community by mandating that every owned
dog and cat be given a rabies vaccination by a state licensed veterinarian. The only way for cities to avoid being in violation of
State mandates is to require pet owners to vaccinate their dogs and cats. To ensure residents have complied with the law, cities
must require residents to license their pets with the stipulation they cannot license their pet without first supplying proof of rabies.
This is particularly important in Southern Arizona due to the close proximity to Mexico. Rabies in Mexico is a disease of
considerable importance, primarily because of the number of people that die of the disease and the number of human
vaccinations administered to prevent it,with the inherent risks involved(Journal of Wildlife Diseases,Vol.6, 1970,pg. 243).
www.edboks.com 35
State law concerning dog licensing is applied as follows: An owner of appY u from 3 to
p
12 months inoculated with a one year rabies vaccination may obtain a one-year license.
The owner of a dog over 12 months old that has been inoculated with a 36-month rabies
vaccination may apply for a one-year license. Thirty six months is currently longest
lon est
period allowed by the State for rabies vaccinations.
According to the Pima County Code, each dog license issued by PACC
one expires year
p
from the date of issuance, or on the date the rabies inoculation expires, whichever comes
first.
Many jurisdictions offer three-year dog licenses with an average discount of 10% for
owners who pay for three years. Several agencies acknowledged some confusion among
pet owners when this policy was initially adopted. However, those same agencies
explained that the confusion was resolved in time through public education. Dog owners
were encouraged to license for the maximum time frame. Licensing information was
posted on websites and in various locations frequented by pet owners and initially
announced with a big media splash.
TABLE SEVEN
Some Communities Offering Multi-year Licenses92
Location Altered Non-Altered Late Penalty
3 Year Fee 3 Year Fee
El Dorado County $35.00 $90.00 $15.00
Hesperia $30.00 $135.00 $10.00 - $25.00
Kern County $30.00 $150.00 None
Paradise $26.40 $52.80 $19.80
Rialto $33.00 $150.00 Unknown
Riverside $19.00 $150.00 $20.00
Roseville $28.00 $56.00 None
Sacramento (Incorp) $35.00 $150.00 $10.00 - $100.00
Sacramento(Un-Incorp) $45.00 $450.00 $100.00
San Bernardino County $45.00 $288.00 Various amounts
San Diego County $36.00 $72.00 $10.00
San Francisco $37.00 $74.00 $12.00
San Jose $39.00 $150.00 $15.00
South Lake Tahoe $22.50 $135.00 None
Ventura County $60.00 $150.00 100%
Avoidance of late penalties is an effective incentive for owners to license pets in a timely
manner.93 Almost 80% of the communities that offer a multi-year licenses also
Y assess
late penalties. Late penalties range from a minimum of $10 up to 100% of the license
amount.
92 Los Angeles Animal Services STUDY OF THE DOG LICENSING PROGRAM,OCTOBER 2008
93 To work as an incentive and not a penalty, pet owners must be informed in advance. ARS 11-1008. License fees for dogs;
Issuance of dog tags;classification E.Any person who knowingly fails within fifteen days after written notification from the county
enforcement agent to obtain a license for a dog required to be licensed...is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.
www.edboks.com 36
The biggest argument against multi-year licensing is ensuring information is updated
when people move, change phone numbers, and even e-mail addresses nowadays.
However, these problems are overcome when dog owners can update their information
automatically on-line. Other concerns include that it may be more difficult to tell at a
glance whether a dog is current on his license/vaccine. With one year licenses, you know
that all 'blue bells' are current, and 'gold stars' are last year's tag. With multi-year, it's
more shapes and colors to track, making ID at a glance a little trickier. Cons also include
loss of revenue over years two and three of the license. The Town would have to budget
and book revenue accordingly. Most communities discount a 3-year tag over the same
tag purchased yearly. This can also result in a loss of revenue, although small.
Pros include a decline in the yearly renewal workload enabling staff to concentrate on
issuing more new licenses; it is more cost effective to contact a dog owner and input
licensing data once every three years, rather than attempting to re-contact each owner
annually; savings accrue through reduced work hours, paper, printing and mailing
expenses; receiving three years of license revenue up front - revenue that is kept even if a
citizen moves out of the area or the pet dies; a multi-year tag is also perceived as a
convenience for the citizens, an "added value" to only have to license every three years.
Finding: Multi-year licenses would assist with streamlining the renewal process.
Enact a three-year license that is coterminous with the rabies vaccination expiration
date to reduce the yearly renewal workload enabling staff to concentrate on issuing
more new licenses and accrue savings through reduced work hours, paper, printing
and mailing expenses. A three-year license can be promoted as value added in the
Licensing Campaign.
Finding: The Town of Oro Valley pays Pima County for calls related to wildlife. This
practice should be reviewed. In other Arizona counties the Department of Game and
Fish respond to wildlife calls or they delegate calls to approved and licensed wildlife
rehabilitators.94 This is true for both incorporated and unincorporated areas. Oro
Valley paid for 14 wildlife calls which accounted for 13% of the Animal Handling Fee
charged to the Town. Some of these calls were dead animal pick-ups which perhaps
should be charged back to the Town.95 Pima County charged the Town $140.75 per
wild animal call or$1,970.50.
Finding: The Town of Oro Valley pays Pima County for animals euthanized at the
request of Oro Valley pet owners. Oro Valley residents also pay $15 for this service.
This practice should be reviewed. Typically, this fee is paid by the pet owner alone.
Oro Valley paid for 19 Owner Requested Euthanasia charges which accounted for
17.6% of the Animal Handling Fee charged to the Town. Pima County charged Oro
Valley $140.75 per euthanasia or $2,674.26 plus $285 from Oro Valley residents ($15
each).
Together these two charges amount to$4,644.75 or 7.5%of the total Oro Charge cost for animal control.
94 List of Game and Fish referrals: http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/urban_rehab_relo.shtml#control
95 In Maricopa County the Department of Transportation provides dead animal pickup. Wildlife calls may include dead animal
pickup but not always. According to PACC they also include live animals such as bob cats,skunks and bats that require removal
from roads,yards or buildings.
www.edboks.com 37
One potential risk to taking on the responsibility of dog licensing is thataraia-
LOW
Pima County could refuse to contract with the Town of Oro Valley - -,
making the Town immediately responsible for all animal control lottO
responsibilities within Town limits. However, as of February 3, 2010,
the PACC executive director committed "to continue, under an IGA, to
provide [field and shelter] services," using the existing model. That is, "Oro Valley would
continue to pay their share of enforcement, shelter and clinic services utilized during the
period."96 This commitment helps alleviate this risk.
Currently Oro Valley pays significantly less than the cost of one FTE (Full Time Employee)
when you consider salary, benefits, vehicle and equipment. For that cost the Town gets
all the benefits of a well equipped and trained animal control program with all the ancillary
support a county government can provide. A cost analysis that this consultant performed
for Maricopa County several years ago put the fully loaded cost of one Animal Control
Officer at $100,000 annually; this estimate is no doubt conservative today.
Even in light of the above cost benefit analysis, the benefits of Oro Valley managing an
g g
effective dog licensing program locally outweigh continuing the status quo. Within the
existing animal control allocation, Oro Valley is able to initiate its own licensing program
and expand the program as needed using increased revenue generated by improved
license compliance. Properly promoted and enforced, the Dog Licensing program can
serve as a rallying cry for more community involvement and Town pride, becoming the
catalyst to making Oro Valley the safest and friendliest pet community in Arizona.
Transition Trauma: Another risk that can be anticipated and planned for is "Transition
Trauma". Some dog owners may be confused to one degree or another depending on the
effectiveness of the preemptive promotional campaign. It is important to initiate this
campaign as early as possible to ensure appropriate dog licensing information gets into
the hands of all Oro Valley dog owners before the program is enacted. Any confusion
existing among outliers may result in an initial decrease in the number of licenses sold as
some of these Oro Valley dog owners may mistakenly continue to purchase a Pima
County license until directly learning not to. However, if implemented effectively, an
informative promotional campaign could result in a spiked compliance increase.
An agreement with PACC to issue Oro Valley dog owners an Oro Valley license only
should be enacted.
There is some evidence that some dog owners living outside the incorporated area are
using Oro Valley as a mailing address, and PACC is accounting these licenses to Oro
Valley.97 When a new ordinance is enacted, and unincorporated area dog owners
continue to purchase Pima County licenses, Oro Valley will no longer get the benefit of
that revenue and the actual number of licenses sold may decline as a result.
96 Per PACC Executive Director Kim Janes via an email dated 2.3.2010
97 PACO Licenses Sold Report shows five low income fees in Oro Valley even though this fee is restricted to dog owners living in
the unincorporated areas according to the PACC website. This is evidence that there may be other dog owners in the
unincorporated area the Oro Valley is getting credit for because they are using an Oro Valley address.
www.edboks.corn 38
Finding: Oro Valley is able to initiate its own licensing program and expand the
program as needed using increased revenue generated by improved license
compliance. Properly promoted and enforced, the Dog Licensing program can serve
as a rallying cry for more community involvement and Town pride, becoming the
catalyst to making Oro Valley the safest and friendliest pet community in Arizona.
Finding: An agreement with PACC to issue Oro Valley dog owners an Oro Valley
license only should be enacted.
frk , ;,,s: St�
,i'.‘-i''' - ' ..',,,,'4*-: '-''''. '''''1
, , jitillp., ,.. ,,
40it..-1' 1;t A 'lig y '�'f A y� P�:
-i:
r
X' 3.,.
,;113
y.: fid` w sir. y�
, ,,
t * -#1,Allik;' ' ' ill
rte,,.✓ .t -,,,,
„...:8 ::, 4.,-t,‘..,,,
..,
,,, „..,,,,,,,.
,,
,...00,
„:-,
,. .,, ,
„. R-" .t�, f -
.4
1 , _
: ex's" y '` '.-:• .._-.c
,,,0„-----
-} i Y
,.
W {
f ,,
st
,- ,,,:—
.,-----,,,,,c;,-,2_,,,;,--,-.* ..,4
_., ,,:j.,,,,,, ,,-- , -„:„.::—J!,,,,,,,,..,:- -,''
fE
--_,„..,,,,,,--, !:„f-;1`.-rt'f- -:
.R?t R 1,:- Tim Xri i '-4-- -{..'.
f
a
4 , .. ...,.__.,,, , ,
illito
,; ,,,,
.. , „..1
.,
,,::,, ,
..,-,,-3 ,.,,., , ,
.- 3: i.
,, gg
_ t
1 ,:,::. ,,, ._ , :
"`c
. ..,,
f
45 . '
,, ,,,,.
r
t
_„.„,„,,
y r _ . s
b,; i4y
— - ' fit
39
www.edboks.com
r.
Finding 1: The Town of Oro Valley has the legal authority to administer animal licenses , t
provided that the Town's ordinance is equal to or more stringent than State law. \
Finding 2: Despite the difficulties described in this Report, veterinarians can add value to
a Town Dog License program and help disburse the workload, provided their performance
is closely monitored and managed. Veterinarians can be paid a fee for each license sold.
The Town Council is probably the appropriate authority for establishing that fee. This
should be verified by the Town Attorney.
Finding 3: Oro Valley should enter into an agreement with the HSSA and PACC to sell
dog licenses for Oro Valley residents who adopt from their organizations.
Finding 4: Three out of four veterinarians are not interested in participating in a Town
Dog Licensing Program. The Town should initiate and administer the program out of
Town Hall. After the program is established the Town should recruit the willing
veterinarian to participate. After the veterinary model is proven, attempts should be made
to recruit the remaining three veterinarians. Eventually veterinarians in the immediate
surrounding area should also be recruited.
Finding 5: Contract license providers (PA CC, HSSA, veterinarians) must be held
responsible for ensuring licenses are issued to Oro Valley residents living within the Town
limits and that accurate information is obtained.
Finding 6: Licensing fees must be affordable and not punitive. It is okay to reward
owners who alter their pets with lower fees, but to punish owners with inordinately higher
fees for not altering their pets only drives them out of the licensing program.
Finding 7: The Town Hall clerical staff is able to take on this responsibility provided the
necessary human and material resources are allocated.
Finding 8: Oro Valley is an unusually pet friendly community. Town staff should enroll (or
mandate by ordinance) Apartment and Home Owner Associations to require dogs to be
licensed as a lease condition of occupancy. Dog parks should also be restricted to
licensed dogs only.
Finding 9: There is significant potential for increasing dog license sales. Benchmarking
found lower fees and a narrower differential accompany revenue and compliance
increases and lower shelter euthanasia rates.
Finding 10: If the Town of Oro Valley is interested in mitigating the euthanasia rate at
PACC more must be done to encourage greater understanding of breeds at risk among
landlords and property managers. Restricting entire breeds is not the answer.
Finding 11: Licensing must be decoupled from spay/neuter and leash law enforcement.
It is more important to register dog owners first and then educate on the benefits of spay
and neuter and leash law requirements. A divided focus hurts licensing compliance.
www.edboks.com 40
Finding 12: The revised Dog Population Estimate of 14,468 dogs reveals a tremendous
market opportunity for implementing a needed Dog Licensing Program. Over 70% of the
dogs in Oro Valley are unlicensed.
Finding 13: Although 28% is the U.S. average, some cities, towns and counties are
achieving rates as high as 38% and 40%. At 27.9%, Oro Valley is already at the national
average with no promotion or significant enforcement effort. A realistic stretch goal
initially for Oro Valley, an affluent, educated community, served with a well funded,
equipped and focused program is 40% by 2015 and 50% by the year 2020.
Finding 14: Fill the vacant Senior Office Assistant position and assign to the Oro Valley
Dog Licensing program, with other duties as required. With appropriate technological and
management support this part-time position can easily process 6,400 licenses a year and
much more with on-line licensing.
Finding 15: A License Program Strategic Plan should be developed as part of the ramp
up to implement a program that maps a course towards ever increasing compliance rates
by incorporating more robust technologies as budget permits, better customer service
methodologies and as appropriate penalties able to incentivize compliance.
Finding 16: The License program must include a donation component dedicated to
funding animal welfare events and education campaigns.
Finding 17: According to State Statute, Oro Valley must create a Separate Enterprise
Fund into which any revenue generated from a Town Dog License program must be
deposited. These funds must be used strictly for expenses relating to enforcement of the
animal control ordinance.
Finding 18: Sharing program costs with neighboring communities, like the Town of
Marana, would provide an economy of scale on web development and other facets of the
program (printing, training, etc.)
Finding 19: Limit capital expenses unless they can be justified as revenue generating
tools. Capitalize on any low cost or free option that can improve license compliance.
Initially, take on Licensing minimally. As license revenue and program confidence
increase, expand the program with more robust technology and staffing options.
Finding 20: Obtain software with accounting, financial and donation processing
functionalities that interface with the Town's financial management systems; software that
tracks, verifies, and reports on baseline statistics that measure performance. For the
purpose of budgeting, Chameleon Basic is proposed as a middle of the road cost for
initiating the program, however, the RFP process will ensure the best program for the
price, and the competitive process may reveal the Town can afford an on-line module
which will add real value for dog owners and increase revenue. Outsourcing should also
be seriously considered.
Finding 21: Canvassing should be seriously considered and if implemented, Town
Council has to stand fast and allow this enforcement tool to work. If upset constituents
www.edboks.corn 41
have the power to kill the program it is better to not start. A legal opinion should be
sought to grant canvassers authority to issue citations.
Finding 22: Canvassing is not advised until after the program is established for two or
more years. This will allow the promotional campaign to enroll as many dog owners as
possible through voluntary compliance while at the same time the budget rollover builds
the necessary funding to make implementation practical.
Finding 23: Absent a Canvassing Program, Police Officers and or Code Enforcement
must be held responsible for enforcement of dog licensing laws.
Finding 24: Canvassers or a Volunteer Posse should attend every Town event to
distribute license information/warnings, etc.
Finding 25: A Canvassing Team comprised of three or four well-trained staff and/or
volunteers (Posse) would report to the Police Chief or his designee. Temps, part-time or
seasonal help can be hired to alleviate costs, as benefits are not included. University of
Arizona students may be prime candidates for this program. Canvassers and/or
volunteers should attend all Town events to pass out information on dog licensing.
Finding 26: Town staff should continually evaluate and implement practical technological
options, promotional opportunities, and process improvement strategies. A well promoted
Licensing Program publicly embraced and endorsed by elected officials will help increase
voluntary compliance.
Finding 27: A Canvassing Team should work one or both weekend days and until 7 p.m.
on weekdays to catch people capable of purchasing a license at home and to cover as
much territory as possible during the autumn through spring months when inclement
weather is less likely to hamper efforts and when there is an increase in the numbers of
litters whelped in the spring. This will also ensure dogs belonging to "snowbirds" are
properly registered.
Finding 28: Canvassers must receive pertinent training that includes but is not limited to
safety standards; dealing with dangerous animals; using various animal control devices;
money handling; use of pertinent forms; basic self defense and/or personal protection
training; Health and Safety; Customer Service/Dealing with Difficult People; Sales Force
Motivation; Animal Related Laws; Administrative Procedures; basic driver education, and
pertinent Federal, State and local statutes, ordinances and laws.
Finding 29: Ideally, the entire Canvassing Team should have the authority to issue
pertinent citations; at the very least, the Team Supervisor must have this authority.
Finding 30: Ongoing technical advances that enhance automated license collections in
the field that increase compliance must be evaluated and acquired as budget permits.
Finding 31: Canvassers and Town police officers must be dedicated to issue warnings
and/or citations to every dog owner they see without a license. One week each month
should be dedicated to concentrating on dog licensing at city parks and on trails, similar to
PD sobriety check points. Additional collections should be received by using the Town
www.edboks.corn 42
attorney's letterhead to notify delinquent owners of the penalty for failure to license their
dog.
Finding 32: The Town Prosecutor must be vigorous in obtaining appropriate penalties for
scofflaws. Pleadings that dismiss license violations should be sought sparingly.
Finding 33: As soon as the Town is able to implement on-line licensing, the Town must
publicize and encourage the use of online transactions. All licensing transactions should
be completed via the internet. Payment notices can be reduced to a postcard or even an
e-mail.
Finding 34: Require pet stores and veterinary offices to hand out license applications to
improve license compliance and reduce administrative and enforcement costs. Make
applications available at banks and partner with banks to collect dog license fees for the
Town.
Finding 35: Integrating licensing with other Town Public Health, Safety and Welfare goals
will help create a culture of responsible pet ownership that will generate incalculable
savings in reduced dog bites, animal control calls, and shelter costs, etc. while increasing
revenues through voluntary compliance.
Finding 36: Partner with local publicist firm or talented volunteer to develop a ubiquitous
dog licensing campaign for the Town pro bono.
Finding 37: Multi-year licenses would assist with streamlining the renewal process.
Enact a three-year license that is coterminous with the rabies vaccination expiration date
to reduce the yearly renewal workload enabling staff to concentrate on issuing more new
licenses and accrue savings through reduced work hours, paper, printing and mailing
expenses. A three-year license can be promoted as value added in the Licensing
Campaign.
Finding 38: The Town of Oro Valley pays Pima County for calls related to wildlife. This
practice should be reviewed. In other Arizona counties the Department of Game and Fish
respond to wildlife calls or they delegate calls to approved and licensed wildlife
rehabilitators. This is true for both incorporated and unincorporated areas. Oro Valley
paid for 14 wildlife calls which accounted for 13% of the Animal Handling Fee charged to
the Town. Some of these calls were dead animal pick-ups which perhaps should be
charged back to the Town. Pima County charged the Town $140.75 per wild animal call
or$1,970.50.
Finding 39: The Town of Oro Valley pays Pima County for animals euthanized at the
request of Oro Valley pet owners. Oro Valley residents also pay $15 for this service. This
practice should be reviewed. Typically, this fee is paid by the pet owner alone. Oro
Valley paid for 19 Owner Requested Euthanasia charges which accounted for 17.6% of
the Animal Handling Fee charged to the Town. Pima County charged Oro Valley $140.75
per euthanasia or$2,674.26 plus $285 from Oro Valley residents ($15 each).
Together the above two Findings represent $4,644.75 or 7.5% of the total Oro
Valley Charge cost for animal control.
www.edboks.com 43
Finding 40: Oro Valley is able to initiate its own licensing program and expand the
program as needed using increased revenue generated by improved license compliance.
Properly promoted and enforced, the Dog Licensing program can serve as a rallying cry
for more community involvement and Town pride, becoming the catalyst to making Oro
Valley the safest and friendliest pet community in Arizona.
Finding 41: An agreement with PACC to issue Oro Valley dog owners an Oro Valley
license only should be enacted.
„:„44.-' - - i,' , ,, ; .C:'(4.','''''' i - -#1'. . ', '''' r ‘‘. I. - -"iri i' t
rt-'V' ' ' 4 tie--it ' . I— , 1.&,4 ' , ,i .''''- '..' k' 1 -i ' 'IP ,y,,‘,„) .A4 . (31it,
, '!:. 14s. x sv - , '4: , , ., ,5.-- ' rut, :I ', 'p' ' ' i. ' , -,,' ,,
t tso-
. 'i '"'I'f,,;, �Y.h i B '9" 4 t, fje , � yi #
_ ,,,,,li- ,..':.----._ -,' * - ,_:,"-; ,,,,,-'.' „-'..,,:,_-,-,-'4) ,*'-,-'-' - Ji;!`4,' , 44, 4'
n,-a.
if'.z
--- -
...„,5. .:' -i-'4X
r� IA; Ji ��'".
.,y
, . '-L.
www.edboks.corn 44
Puzpose Thwr3',i'. ia�� ;`'{.:(;�,.•a[� ��'p� �L'���_E f `^ rriy ��S "}, sa}j t _'� .�'-s� 'a2'� iOCL ` €i� Dog L.k .�e . L�
The purpose of a Town Dog License program is to increase the total number of dog
licenses sold and dog license revenue in order to more effectively promote and protect the
health, safety and welfare of Oro Valley's human and dog populations. An Oro Valley
program can be effectively implemented by following these steps:
r (
E. . ..-'.� . .t\..:E-, .J .. l'.I�1.:� \_ys'_ !. �...�l'> 1:..:'„a..._
,J 1 ,'J IE C'..i1 l.f vl ✓a.�: I''✓L l...�E,�, L:V�._ l�t.,. V U l i�_. .._>.�l�IJ�;:.� !IJ�E..`�Jl,i t� �./J � ' .� � •t...
1. Communicate Town Council intentions with PACC immediately. PACC is a vital
partner to successfully transitioning this program responsibility to Oro Valley. PACC
has made it clear they want to help and support Oro Valley in this effort. Fountain Hills
(the only other successful town licensing program in AZ) also agreed to assist Oro
Valley.
2. Although the .63 FTE position may not be necessary to accommodate the volume of
licenses sold initially, filling this position will neutralize potential morale issues resulting
from the additional workload. The new employee can also help perform other duties
as required and assist the Public Information Officer (PlO) with the License Campaign
efforts described in paragraph 5 below. The net result is a happier clerical staff
positioned to generate a positive revenue stream through a successful program.
3. In this climate of fiscal austerity, Oro Valley should limit capital expenses unless they
can be justified as revenue generating tools. Based on research and in light of current
staff levels and budget decreases, the Town should try to capitalize on any low cost or
free option that can improve license compliance. Initially, take on Licensing minimally.
As license revenue and program confidence increases, expand the program with more
robust technology and staffing options.
a. Concurrent with recruiting the new clerk, obtain a software package with
accounting and financial tracking capability including donations processing with
interface capacity with the Town's financial management systems.
b. The software program must be able to track, verify, and refine baseline statistics
that measure the impact of animal care, spay/neuter and other public relations
initiatives on target populations.
4. Direct Town Attorney to draft an ordinance that establishes:
a. License expiration dates coterminous with rabies vaccination expiration dates.
This will alleviate a lot of confusion when dog owners apply weeks or months
following a rabies vaccination;
b. Authority for Town staff to prorate license fees to ensure a license is coterminous
with a rabies vaccination given earlier.
c. A three-year licensing option coterminous with rabies vaccination expiration dates
for dogs one year old and older.
d. Graduated penalties for late payment and willful nonpayment of fees;
e. A decrease in the single-year license fee to $50 for unaltered dogs;
f. Monetary penalties for submission of falsified license documents;98
g. Monetary penalties that effectively deter noncompliance;
98 In Calgary, a false declaration by an owner regarding the license of an animal carries a$500 fine. The agency also charges a
$250 fee for delinquent licenses.
www.edboks.com 45
h. Modify the requirement that veterinarians provide printed copies of rabies
vaccinations to the Department to the dog owner self certifies dog is vaccinated by
providing Rabies Certificate Number and name and contact information of
veterinarian administering the vaccination to the Town, as done in Maricopa
County.
i. A grace period that alerts constituents to the beginning day of enforcement of the
new program and explains Pima County licenses already issued will be honored
until they expire at which time Oro Valley dog owners are required to purchase a
Town dog license. (Option: Pima County licenses purchased by accident can be
considered valid provided the dog owner also registers with the Oro Valley
program.)
j. Grants designated personnel the authority to issue pertinent warnings and
citations.
5. Assign Public Information Officer (P10) responsibility/authority to create public
information outreach materials and programs for a dog licensing campaign. Possible
campaign slogans include: "My license is my ticket home!" or "If you love your dog,
you'll license your dog!"99 (Option: Pro bono assistance should be sought from a local
publicist firm. Maricopa County campaign materials may be available for use by Oro
Valley.)
a. Public/private partnerships should be sought to have pro bono ads placed in local
newspapers, publications, kiosks, airing via local broadcast media, and on Town
and partner web sites and bulletin boards.
b. Handouts and bumper stickers designed and made available on all Town point of
service desks/counters and at every bank, school, business and appropriate
bulletin board in town and distributed at all Town events.
c. Notices distributed through utility companies emphasizing dog bite prevention and
licensing.
d. Materials to be disbursed 60 to 90 days before enactment of the program
explaining the benefits of licensing. Fines should always be mentioned last.
e. If the Town of Oro Valley is intent on reducing the euthanasia rate in Pima County
a campaign to encourage greater understanding of breeds at risk at PACC should
be considered.
f. The Town should conduct frequent surveys to evaluate basic license program
performance data and customer (target population) satisfaction. A successful dog
licensing program has to have a good understanding of the characteristics of the
target population of dogs and dog owners.
g. Licensing can be promoted as an initiation fee to join the Oro Valley Dog Lover's
Club. A website featuring dog tips and information on responsible pet ownership
and events could be developed for Oro Valley dog license holders, creating a fun
virtual community.
6. Town Council proclamation, press release, and press event to announce initiation of
an Oro Valley Dog Licensing Program to begin on a date certain. Mayor and Council
to explain commitment to the integration of Town health, safety and welfare goals with
99 PACC realized a 28% increase in licensing last year with no promotion; even a modest campaign should generate enough
revenue to cover the growing annual Oro Valley animal control deficit.
www.edboks.corn 46
new vision for Town dog licensing program (fewer bites, fewer animal related traffic
accidents, fewer shelter deaths, etc.) Oro Valley to be THE safest community in
Arizona for dogs!
a. Develop a fee-waiver policy in the annual budget such as granting the Town
Manager or Mayor authority to waive first-year licensing fees for altered dogs
adopted at Town-sponsored events or PACC;
b. Establish rewards for licensing such as policies that lost and Oro Valley licensed
dogs get (one per year?) free ride home if picked up by a Town or County
employee;
c. Include in the annual budget a recommendation to implement a widely-publicized
amnesty plan, especially targeted at owners of unaltered dogs, that for example,
waives penalties upon timely licensing of unlicensed dogs (perhaps partnering with
local veterinarians the amnesty period could provide opportunity to have the dog
altered at reduced price).
7. When the budget permits, a more robust license software program should be sought.
a. A program that provides online user access to reduce processing costs by allowing
an owner to self-certify and make online payment with auto-renewal authority (that
can include automated donations as well) without requiring any staff actions; and
b. Allows dog owners to update addresses, phone numbers, email addresses on-line;
c. Allows dog owners to make on-line donations which the software can track and
report on to be used to promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of pets
in Oro Valley.
8. The Parks and Recreation facility and police substations should be considered as
possible dog licensing centers when budget, technology and staffing permit.
9. After the Town Hall program is established, reach out to the one veterinarian who is
enthusiastic about making this program work. Start slow. Given the practical issues
of loss, confusion and delay identified in the Maricopa County experience, begin with
one veterinarian, and once the concept of a Veterinary Dog Licensing program is
proven, staff should begin to reach out to the other three local veterinarians.
Eventually, veterinarians in the surrounding area can be approached.
10. Once the Town has the IT capability, partnerships with local banks to accept dog
license renewal payments, including by automatic teller, should be sought.
11. When License revenue can support a Canvassing Program, one should be initiated,
perhaps comprised at first with well-trained volunteers (Posse) under the Police
Department.
12. Once a performance baseline is established, the Town can upgrade work performance
standards to meet or exceed the Town Council guidelines.
www.edboks.com 47
01.- --
I.
O
0
N
In
0-' = a a
cm
mCO 1--
Q
- j
I
0
N
`` W
= , 0
-I
LL _ >
W
a o____ 'E. racp
I—; a) ,...0 .
_.
c _
mi
NI _ Ce C a
1,{y a, o L-
•-
W.. . ;= O o [0.
er:,. an. = >, ,4_,F.- , a) ,,, 6.)W p
Q .co U •> 0i a)
a.(0 _
c _
C "C2 Z j12
0 CV U) 0 �-
I- = O a ca JW -
Q '' C9 Q 0 a� au
ca
O Q i ca
.V 0 —
O L Cl)
- --- E .O i
U ; i V T Iti
Q co O
,. = o
!it
- 0 . O) C
I := .a a) O C _O
V
RT 8
Q V ` L W v ca
•_ _ � . J U
E ft•=— Ce ccs O O
0 i a– CD 4' CD . CD (-)
ui
It: 0 r
O
C) 0 C) a)2
U Et _ 0 0 0 -a
Supportive Plan of Expenditures
Below is a chart with the estimated Oro Valley human and dog population projections in
year 2015 and 2020. Based on these projections an estimated roll-out plan of
expenditures, that is, a proposed budget for the Oro Valley Dog Licensing Program is
provided. The proposed budget reveals the potential for generating large carryover
amounts. These carryovers should be used to initiate canvassing efforts as early as FY12
or FY13 in order to obtain the license compliance rates projected for FY15.
TABLE EIGHT
Pima County and Oro Valley Human Population Projections and Oro Valley
Dog Population Projections
Year10° PIMA COUNTY TOWN OF Projected OV
(DES projected) ORO VALLEY Dog Population
2010 1,070,723 45,199 14,468
2011 1,092,369 46,204
2012 1 ,113,749 47,209
2013 1,134,853 48,213
2014 1,155,599 49,218
2015 1,175,967 50,222 16,718
2016 1 ,195,933 51,005
2017 1 ,215,512 51,787
2018 1,234,697 52,569
2019 1,253,475 53,352
2020 1,271,912 54,134 18,020
,00 The Arizona Department of Economic Security has published its official population projections for the State and all counties:
2006—2055. These forecasts conform to Pima County Control Totals adopted by DES in 2006,which were not approved by PAG.
PAG provides these data as a courtesy only and makes no claim as to their veracity.
www.edboks.com 49
i_J
REVENUE Proposed Fees FY11 FY15 FY20
Licenses
Altered $15 $48,300 $79,725 $107,415
Unaltered $50 $6,500 $10,750 $14,500_
Senior/disabled altered $10 $6,570 $10,840 $14,500
Low Income altered* $8 $40 $64 $112
Senior/disabled unaltered $17 $646 $1,071 $1,445
Low Income unaltered* $27 $27 $54 $54
Transfer of Ownership $10
Duplicates $10
Penalties
Less than one year $10 $2,210 $3,650 $4,920
One-two years $22 $88 $154 $198
Over two years $36 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL REVENUES $64,381 $106,308 $143,144
EXPENSES FY11 FY15 FY20
Salary:
mid range($12.95-$19.43)
Senior Office Assistant $16.19/hr $22,562 $37,043 $40,410
Benefits based at 28% $6,317 $10,372 $11,315
Canvassing team costs to be determined
Operating Expenses:
Tags estimate .14/tag*4500 tags $630 $1,200 $3,420
.61 for tag; .44 for renewal (full
Postage first-class) $4,246 $7,690 $22,525
Office Supplies toner cartridges, paper, envelopes $300 $360 $432
estimated from fountain hills costs
Printing** +50% $900 $1,634 $2,685
From free up to$20,000 or more -
Computer software*** depending on need $12,500
based on 1 workstation and 1
Computer maintenance*** server $1,920 $1,920 $1,920
Media/promotional costs to be determined
Capital/Minor Assets:
1 PC/printer; may not be
Computing equipment necessary first year 2000 2000 2000
TOTAL EXPENSES $51,375 $62,219 $84,707
REVENUE COMMENTS:
FY11 -based on 14,468,28%compliance(4051 licenses)
FY15-based on 16,718,40%compliance(6687 licenses)
FY20-based on 18,020,50%compliance(9010 licenses)
EXPENDITURES COMMENTS:
*This fee currently applies to unincorporated citizens only;these are included because they were reported by Pima County to be in Oro Valley. Oro
Valley may choose to adopt these low-income fees or not.
**Printing costs will vary depending on public education campaign,frequency of late notices,canvassing,etc.
***Town will have to make determination on software package;this is based on the basic Chameleon package,which seems middle of the road in
pricing.
****Pima County did not provide actuals for FY09,so this is based on CY09 licenses sold.
www.edboks.com 50
��AINly
O lam-
400-.
Addendums:
�db11s
;;,.„440
The only model in Arizona similar to what the Town of Oro Valley is investigating is
Fountain Hills. Fountain Hills is a smaller community with a current population of
approximately 25,500 people and a projected growth of 34,324 people at build out,
estimated to be in 2030.101 Oro Valley's population is 43,465.102
The population growth rate in Fountain Hills has also been slower than Oro Valley with a
growth rate from 2000 to 2008 of 23% compared to Oro Valley's 46% growth during the
same period. There are approximately 10,619 homes in Fountain Hills compared to Oro
Valley with 12,249 households. The median household income is $82,163 and the
median age is 48, in contrast to the Oro Valley which has a median household income of
$74,015 and a median age of 46.9. The average household size is 2.31 compared to Oro
Valley at 2.46.
The Town of Fountain Hills contracts with Maricopa County for animal shelter and animal
control services. Through an IGA Fountain Hills pays cost recovery fees to the County
per this schedule: $18,537 for animal control services plus $10/day for boarding, $25 per
animal euthanized, and $50 per animal impounded. The annual budget for animal control
is $30,600. These costs do not include the administrative costs associated with licensing.
The estimated annual revenue from dog licensing in Fountain Hills is $39,500 with
approximately 3,300 dogs licensed; compared with Pima County collecting $55,053 for
4,044 licenses in Oro Valley. Fountain Hills' license fees mirror Maricopa County's fees
($16 altered/$40 unaltered) although the ordinance gives the Town discretion to either
adopt the Maricopa County Animal Care and Control Fee Schedule, in whole or in part, or
amend the fee schedule as necessary to comply with the requirements of their animal
control ordinance. 103
Fountain Hills' provides its own dog licensing program because it provides residents with
a level of service that they appreciate and it allows Town officials to protect the public
health by making sure pets are vaccinated.104
The Fountain Hills Dog Licensing Program includes:105
• An IGA with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office who responds to barking dog
complaints for the Town.
• Licensing follow up is done initially by the Town of Fountain Hills Customer Service
Rep (mail notices) and then handed off to code enforcement for scofflaws.
• Town officials ensure the rabies vaccination is up to date on all dogs and they do not
issue a license beyond the period of the vaccination.
• Local law enforcement reunites licensed lost dogs with owners.
• Sharing license information with Maricopa County so they can also reunite owners
with lost pets.
101 Fountain Hills data found on Town of Fountain Hills website:http://www.fh.az.gov/economic-development/demographics/
102 Oro Valley data found at 2007 U.S.Census: http://www.census.gov/
103 Pima County has lower fees than Maricopa County and has separate fees for low income, senior and disabled citizens (fees
are$8, $10,$17 and$27).
104 According to Fountain Hills Finance Director,Julie Ghetti.
105 Ibid.
www.edboks.com 51
``,� ;,rte fir '� .'
! ,tom. .�_. 'Y • ,.,,. -s
The City of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, has a population of about 889,000. However,
Calgary's pet licensing administrators have been able to license 90 to 95% of the
estimated 105,000 dogs in their city.106
Calgary has reached this high compliance rate by following a simplified licensing system
where the purpose is getting pets and their owners enrolled in the system. In Calgary, no
rabies vaccination is required to process a license. Owners do not need to provide a copy
of spay/neuter certificates from licensed veterinarians to get reduced license fees.107
However, in Calgary, a false declaration by an owner regarding the license of an animal
carries a $500 fine. The agency also charges a $250 fee for delinquent licenses.
Even so, CAS' 90% compliance rate resulted from a long term and aggressive door to
door canvassing and public education program. CAS probably does more paid
advertising of services than any other animal control agency. CAS ads are ubiquitous: in
telephone books, on kiosks, among TV listings, in all the local newspapers, airing via
broadcast media, and on a web site. CAS handouts are also on the service desks at
every bank in town, and all the banks accept dog license renewal payments, including by
automatic teller. The major Calgary newspapers and utility companies distribute CAS
handouts, emphasizing dog bite prevention. It may not be possible to be in Calgary for 24
hours without seeing or hearing "Does your dog have a license?" in one form or another,
and with the question followed by a pitch on the advantages of licensing, like a free ride
home for any licensed dog found at large for 20 years. Avoiding a possible fine is always
mentioned last.108
With fewer requirements in Calgary, licenses can be completed using just a single page
application109 and payment of the appropriate fee. Revenue received above costs is
donated to the local humane society for animal training and humane education. The
official slogan is: "My license is my ticket home." Although CAS does not require dogs to
be vaccinated against rabies before issuing a license, this is a requirement that
significantly complicates and increases the cost of Arizona dog license programs.11°
While Calgary has the highest rate of licensing of any of the agencies reviewed, the City
of Chicago had the lowest licensing rate of about 3% in the year 2000.111
106 There is a reason why Calgary has far fewer dogs than the population should dictate,and that is Canada keeps pets at a rate
similar to the British ratio of about one dog per nine human residents, while the U.S. ratio is about one dog per five human
residents.
107 Provincial and local laws do not require proof of rabies vaccination or spay/neuter status as do Arizona laws and ordinances.
108 ANIMAL PEOPLE,October 2000: Why Calgary has almost as many off-leash parks as dog bites
109 Requests can be completed online, over the phone, through the mail, at a veterinarian office or in person along with
appropriate payment.
110 11-1008. License fees for doqs; issuance of dog tags;classification E.Any person who knowingly fails within fifteen days after
written notification from the county enforcement agent to obtain a license for a dog required to be licensed... is guilty of a class 2
misdemeanor. CAC is able to sell tags on site, whereas dog owners in AZ must receive a 15 day warning to vaccinate and
license a dog requiring enforcement agents to follow-up one or more times to ensure compliance.
1" Chicago's licensing program was voluntary and the agency has become more active and allocated more resources since
2000,the rate has increased as a result.
www.edboks.com 52
•
More on
By Merritt Clifton, ANIMAL PEOPLE editor112
An ANIMAL PEOPLE 2002 survey found that eight representative U.S. cities113 did not
find a relationship between high license compliance and kill rates.
However, an effective dog licensing program may refute that finding. Calgary Animal
Services (CAS) in Alberta, Canada, boasts a 90% dog license compliance rate and they
have reduced dog euthanasia to 3% of the dogs they impound (2004). Calgary only
euthanizes dogs who cannot be adopted because of aggression or non-correctable health
issues.
They return 88% of the dogs they impound to their homes thanks to licensing, and they
adopt out 9%. About half of the dogs they pick up go directly home. The savings
achieved by not bringing dogs back to the shelter is significant, both in monetary terms
and in making more productive use of staff time.
Additionally, they have reduced aggressive dog incidents by two thirds over 20 years
while the city doubled in size. Revenues exceed operating costs. In fact, Calgary Animal
Services has enough left over to give a quarter million dollar annual operating grant to the
Calgary Humane Society.
Calgary does not license cats, so they are not doing as well there. However, they still do
better than most. Their numbers on cats are 50% returned to owner, 31% adopted to new
homes, and 19% euthanized. Healthy adoptable cats are not euthanized. CAS works
with local humane groups and veterinarians on cat identification, seeking to reduce the
euthanasia rate for cats.
The Calgary licensing program works, unlike any other anywhere in the world, because it
is managed in a very different manner. The enabling legislation is similar to most U.S.
communities, but enforcement differs in two key respects.
One CAS innovation was that licensed dogs found at large initially got a free ride home.
Eventually a small service fee was added. People whose dogs escape tend to cheerfully
pay it; most would spend far more to try to find a lost pet, worrying all the while.
The other Calgary twist was that instead of trying to make licensing pay for itself from the
first license sold, Calgary priced licensing low and ubiquitously and positively promoted it
as an inexpensive public service to people who have dogs, attracting enough voluntary
compliance to make money on volume. Reminders to license are everywhere, always
selling the advantages instead of threatening with penalties.
The Calgary success, now sustained for many years, redefines "high licensing
compliance." Few jurisdictions anywhere can claim even a third of the Calgary licensing
compliance rate.
12 ANIMAL PEOPLE,September 2005: Editor's response to a letter"Calgary's Licensing System Works"in preceding issue.
13 Tucson,Chicago,Philadelphia,Seattle,San Francisco,Salt Lake City, Fort Worth and Milwaukee
www.edboks.com 53
Other communities claiming more than 30% licensing compliance usually get it through
door-to-door enforcement that rarely pays for itself, is hated by the public, and cannot be
sustained.
Of note is that contrary to the common belief that licensing increases the dog sterilization
rate, the percentage of U.S. dogs who are sterilized--more than two-thirds--is more than
twice the percentage who are licensed.
Calgary meanwhile returns dogs to their homes at an unheard-of rate. Many U.S. animal
control agencies manage to achieve 50% returns to home, with return rates typically
coming in around double the local licensing rate, but the dogs typically spend several
days in the shelter before being found. A 60% return rate is considered high, and most
animal control chiefs would consider 88% impossible.
www.edboks.corn 54
« ° p u ri5s of an
Effective Dog L:i.ry4 e trf - Program
Excerpts from a Found Animal Foundation Study 114
1. A Sensible Policy Structure
a. "Honor" system for S/N & Rabies requirement at time of registration
(option to verify later, stiff penalties for falsifying license applications)
b. Reasonably affordable fee structure
c. Enforceable penalties for non-compliance
2. An Easy and Accessible Process
a. Automated and/or outsourced processing to minimize costs
b. Convenient process for the public to navigate with minimal paperwork:
c. Door-to-door license sales
d. Online system for first time licensing and renewal
e. License sales available at Town Hall, Veterinary Offices and other venues.
3. A Ubiquitous Education and Outreach Programs
a. Inform dog owners of licensing requirements, process, benefits, penalties
b. Utilize opportunities to publicize via city resources (DWP bills, signs on public
transportation, local media, etc.)
c. Programs to encourage registration (amnesty, discount, etc.)
4. A Consistent Neighborhood Canvassing Program
a. Door-to-door license sales
b. Distribution of educational materials
c. Database development of licensed and unlicensed dogs
d. Aggressive non-renewal follow-up
e. Notices to appear in court for non-compliance, fines, etc.
14 501c3 California based,Found Animal Foundation:A Licensing Overview,2009
www.edboks.corn 55
.• .•• • - - Y.k►Wixi►t!Wl�e+r.-^�'.hMrw`V/`lU19'lLOLRfiAtt�
. C 0(44)TRAc T.
•.• ••_... ., •.•••'r.• Jf1t.'lttll.'RIRiIWMti({bSY.
NO.��rd// •►rt..a/ ! 1Lls�o[RFt
AM NU MI mu D
...irw'a�..n......•.�•arGlrli/Pn4[1�►11f-L
TM number fy)oti7 ,,,,,,,i) on all
Invoices,� Mt +;r),'=is,-,(3�:�1t��i►i;ty and
documents vfi-fhio% m t¢hl9
6antr8rt r •.
• •. ..• RV!VOTYiity1R Jtfa9MIvISG'Y`7'VQx.717`.agltd,'P'X.l9J..�Y'R?Ya1t
,
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY AND PIMA COUNTY
CONTRACT NO. 01-01-0-138562-1006
WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley and Pima County have entered into an
. Intergovernmental Agreement for the provision of animal control services by COUNTY relating
to enforcement of leash law ordinances, biting dog ordinances, and animal cruelty ordinances
and to provide for the impoundment and sheltering of stray animals, Contract No. 01-01-0-
138562-1006;
1-01-O-
138562-1006; and
WHEREAS,the Intergovernmental Agreement contains a specific provision allowing the
Parties to renew for an additional term of two (2) years upon mutual agreement of the Parties;
and
NOW, THEREFORE,the Parties to this Intergovernmental Agreement exercise the
option contained in Article 111.16—Duration and Effective Date, and renew the
Intergovernmental Agreement for a period of two (2)years,beginning July 1, 2008 and ending
June 30, 2010. .
All other provisions of the Intergovernmental Agreement not specifically revised by
Amendment No. 1 remain unchanged.
PIMA COUNTY TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, a Municipal
Corporation
AUG 0 5 2008
iii, , ,
--, 4,4%
, , .. . IL d diliki... N'.1. /.417 -
c and Elias, Chairman Date Mayor Date
Pima County Board of Supervisors
ATTEST: ATTEST:
'
AUG o 5 2008lio
(a �� 6--(9)8
�.�' � C
Clerk of the Board Date ' To Clerk Date
J
Di\--k--
) ki)
:6
(:)/c_
'/ ,, s1 leo�
REE , 4EO
Town of Oro Valley PACC No l.doc 1 AUG 2 6 7000
REVIEWED By:
Th
APPROVED A S TO CONTENT ._...
L'EIcIt.S VV,DOUGLAS,Director
Pima Coun;y Health Dept.
41161/ A
Department e.• Date
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-952, the undersigned public agency attorney has determined that this
Intergovernmental Agreement is in proper form and is within the powers and authority granted
under the laws of the State of Arizona
.34A106-
Attorney, Town of Oro Va Date
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-952,the undersigned public agency attorney has determined that this
Intergovernmental Agreement is in proper form and is within the powers and authority granted
under the laws of the State of Arizona
77Akii
t?' 2;6 Ok
DeprirCounty Attorney,Pima County Date
Town of Oro Valley PACC No 1.doc 2
00%q1-0131
F. ANN RODRIGUEZ, RECORDER DOCKET; 13370
RECORDED BY: M S PAGE: 29
DEPUTY RECORDER ° Z NO. OF PAGES; 2
1966 . PE1 , C)) SEQUENCE: 20081580013
PC PRO �+11, 0814/200PIMA CO PROCUREMENT ,M\ 'b AAG . 08:29 .
PICKUP i o Q'
- PICKUP
AMOUNT PAID $ 0.00
NO. ((//,//,/1�J o l- a- ZifO'U—:222—.M�i�a�aa�.�:e..�aa.�w�
AMENDM • cru,
. This numbsr miN) 4 j,,ihic on all
invoices. ip1',i i00,1.ice and
dacumsntc ve,.a`ii1n to this
contract.
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY AND PIMA COUNTY
CONTRACT NO. 01-01-0-138562-10M
WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley and Pima County have entered into an
Intergovernmental Agreement for the provision of animal control services by COUNTY relating
to enforcement of leash law ordinances, biting dog ordinances, and animal cruelty ordinances
and to provide for the impoundment and sheltering of stray animals, Contract No. 01-01.0-
138562-1006; and
WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Agreement contains a specific provision allowing the
Parties to renew for an additional term of two (2) years upon mutual agreement of the Parties;
and
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties to this Intergovernmental Agreement exercise the
option contained in Article 1II.16--Duration and Effective Date, and renew the
Intergovernmental Agreement for a period of two (2) years, beginning July 1, 2008 and ending
June 30, 2010.
All other provisions of the Intergovernmental Agreement not specifically revised by
Amendment No. 1 remain unchanged.
PIMA COUNTY TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, a Municipal 4
Corporation
,r741
;_ O 0 5 200$ 4/.2/0
'chard Elias, Cha man Date Mayor Date
Pima County Board of Supervisors
ATTEST: ATTEST:
410.40, , Jot', AUG 0 5 2008 ..e;7 a
te.Z: ' SC;)
Clerk of the Board Date T n Clerk Date
r 1
REVIE0tED
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT
DENNIS W.DOUGLAS,Director
Pima Courty Hearth Dept ........ .. ..
Department Head /C)e) Date
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-952, the undersigned public agency attorney has determined that this
Intergovernmental Agreement is in proper form and is within the powers and authority granted
under the laws of the State of Arizona
•
• j—Aci/06,
Attorney, Town of Oro Valley Date
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-952, the undersigned public agency attorney has determined that this
Intergovernmental Agreement is in proper form and is within the powers and authority granted
under the laws of the State of Arizona
/2 /or
Depu . ounty Attorney,Pima County Date
r9
Town of Oro Valley PACC No 1.doc 2
n../wA ilxvr:LG, 1Kt:CORDER DOCKET: 12908
RECORDED BY: OG PAGE: 2912
, DEPUTY RECORER
Dvov�1
�� NO. OF PAGES: 10
9999 PE2 41{-, :s
� SEQUENCE: 20061970794
P0230 r,','R� �►
10/12/2006
PIMA CO CLERK OF THE BOARD RES 15:06
PICKUP 4,4X1010`
PICKUP
AMOUNT PAID $ 0.00
RESOLUTION No. 2006 _ 2 58
•
RESOLUTION OF THE PIMA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVING
AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT BETWEEN PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA AND THE TOWN OF ORO
VALLEY FOR THE PROVISION OF ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES WITHIN THE
LIMITS OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA.
WHEREAS, Pima County, Arizona has established and operates a facility known
as the Pima Animal Care Center located a 4000 North Silverbell Road, which facility
functions as a County dog pound for the impoundment of live animals and the disposal of
dead animals, and which facility presently employs trained personnel familiar with
matters of animal impoundment and dead animal disposal;
WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley is currently lacking similar or suitable
facilities for the provision of animal control services;
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of Pima County, Arizona and the Town of
Oro Valley for the Pima Animal Care Center to provide certain animal control services to
the Town of Oro Valley, and to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement for that
purpose pursuant to A.R.S. §11-951 et seq.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA, as follows:
Section 1. That it is necessary to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement to
provide the services of the Pima Animal Care Center to the Town of Oro Valley.
Section_2. That the Chairman of the Pima County Board of Supervisors is hereby
authorized and directed to sign said Intergovernmental Agreement, a copy of which is
attached hereto.
1
Section 3. That the various Pima County officers and employees be and hereby are '
authorized and directed to perform all acts necessary and desirable to give effect to this t9
Resolution.
2
\\v,)
„
PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED by the Pima County Board of
Supervisors, this 3rd day of October , 2006.
. . _
PIMA COUNTY I OARD OF SUPERVISORS
By: 4,/,404111° •
Richard Elias, hairman
• ATTEST
•.... . .
4-
•
By:
Cr: of h )VPardiOcSitPeTVS6XS
•/,•,••• •
•• •
'• .* • ' _•
APPROVtlikA,.5-16 fOlitAt;;.” • •
• •
B ,• LLA
De uty County Attorney
1
2
8
3
rfq 0
RESOLUTION NO. (R) 06-65
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY,
ARIZONA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
:.... __. .__._ ..._... .. ..---.AND.....PIMA.--COUNTY,.._A...POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF-THE STATE- OF-.ARIZONA,-...................... ...._..
THROUGH ITS HEALTH DEPARTMENT ANIMAL CARE CENTER FOR THE
PROVISION OF ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES.
WHEREAS,the Town of Oro Valley pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 11-952 is
authorized to enter or renew into agreements for joint and cooperative action with other public agencies;
and
WHEREAS,the Town of Oro Valley is authorized to establish and maintain the Oro Valley Police
Department, pursuant to A.R.S. § 9-240 (B) (12); and
WHEREAS,
the Town of Oro Valleydesires to enter into an agreement with Pima County Health
Department Animal Care Center for the provision of animal control services beginning with the Fiscal
Year from July 1,2006 to June 30, 2008; and
_ WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the Town to enter into the agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit
"A" and incorporated here in by this reference, in order to set forth the terms and conditions to provide for
the health, safety and welfare of the residents in the Town of Oro Valley.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY,ARIZONA AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the Intergovernmental Agreement(attached hereto as Exhibit"A")between the Town of
Oro Valley and Pima County Health Department Animal Care Center is hereby approved.
2. That the Mayor of the Town of Oro Valley, Chief of Police and other administrative officials
are hereby authorized to take such steps as necessary to execute and implement the terms of the
Agreement.
3. That the Mayor,upon advice of the Town Manager, is hereby authorized to execute a two year
renewal of the Agreement,pursuant to Intergovernmental Agreement paragraph 16, and the
Chief of Police and other administrative officials are,thereafter, authorized to take such steps as
are necessary to implement the renewal terms.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley,Arizona, this
16th day of August ,2006.
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY,ARIZONA
ELI
Paul H. Loomis,Mayor 2
9
ATTEST: APP OVER AS TO F
6(
.,ditamarMilt '-
1(athry , Cuvelier,Town Clerk Melinda Garraha awn Attorney
Date: g �--"1 (0 Date:
1 I
CONTRACT
NO, D2:2/2_:23.1.,aj...72±/A
AMENOMENY NO
This number must appear on all
invoices, correspondence and
documents pertaining to this
contract.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES
BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND PIMA
COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA.
THIS Intergovernmental Agreement "AGREEMENT" is entered into on this day of
2006, by and between TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, a municipal corporation,
hereinafter referred to as "TOWN" and Pima County, Arizona, a political subdivision of the
State of Arizona hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY".
I. RECITALS:
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the TOWN desires to enter into an Agreement with the
COUNTY for the provision of animal control services relating to enforcement of leash law
ordinances, biting dog ordinances, and animal cruelty ordinances and to provide for the
impoundment and sheltering of stray animals;
WHEREAS, the COUNTY has trained personnel capable of enforcing the TOWN
Animal Control Ordinances and has facilities for the impoundment and sheltering of stray
animals;
WHEREAS, the COUNTY is engaged in certain activities relating to the operation of a
COUNTY pound, vaccination and rabies control, stray animal impoundment, including an
Animal Care Center, and is therefore presently able to provide assistance and services to the 1
20
TOWN for animal control purposes and;
1 - then
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of A.R.S. § 19S I et. seq., TOWN and
COUNTY are expressly authorized to enter into an intergovernmental agreement to provide such .
services.
1
h I
NOW, THEREFORE, the TOWN and COUNTY, pursuant to the TOWN's Resolution
No. and the COUNTY's Resolution No. , do hereby agree as follows:
II. PARTIES OBLIGATIONS:
I. The County Enforcement Agent, herein designated by COUNTY to be Pima Animal
Care Center, and all employees thereunder, shall be referred to herein as "Town Enforcement
Agents."
2. The Town Enforcement Agents shall administer and enforce the provisions of the Oro
Valley Animal Control Code, applicable state laws, and all services related thereunder, including
such amendments to said laws as may be passed from time to time.
3. For the purpose of this Agreement, that certain Ordinance known as the Town of Oro
Valley Animal Control Ordinance is hereby adopted and made a part of this Agreement by
reference as if specifically set forth herein.
4. The Town Enforcement Agents shall be granted those limited police powers necessary
to carry out duties imposed by this Agreement, together with any powers necessary for such
agents to engage in the vaccination, licensing and other activities arising from their duties as
Town Enforcement Agents.
5. The services performed under this Agreement shall be carried out in accordance with
Pima Animal Care Center Policies and Procedures, and the desires of the COUNTY and TOWN
as such desires may be expressed from time to time by the Pima County Board of Supervisors or
the Town Council of Oro Valley. Such scope of service level requirements shall be revised, if
necessary, in accordance with availability of funds allocated for animal control purposes by the
TOWN. Any such revision shall be in the form of a written amendment to this Agreement.
6. The TOWN Prosecutor shallP rosecute all criminal matters and the Oro Valley
Magistrate Court shall handle criminal and civil matters arising out of the enforcement of the
Oro Valley Animal Control Code, as amended, pursuant to this Agreement. All fines collected
0
by the Oro Valley Magistrate Court as a result of the enforcement of the Oro Valley Animal
Control Code, shall be the property of the TOWN, and the TOWN shall be entitled to use they
funds for its purposes.
2
1 1
7. The Town Enforcement Agents, acting under this Agreement within the jurisdictional
limits of the TOWN, shall collect animal licensing and kennel fees and such fees as may be
required under the Oro Valley Animal Control Code and/or state statutes, including but not
limited_ to..A:R.S...._§..:114101 -et.. sect. .. -Said- funds are to be credited to_..the TOWN for costs
incurred pursuant to this Agreement.
8. The COUNTY shall, before the beginning of the COUNTY fiscal year, submit to the
TOWN a copy of the proposed succeeding fiscal year operating and capital outlay budget by
jurisdiction, including but not limited to the estimated income from all fees, licenses and charges
by jurisdiction and estimated TOWN contributions to the Animal Control budget, if any,' TOWN
contributions shall be paid on an annual basis as hereinafter set forth.
9. The TOWN shall be extended complete cooperation and access to all documents
relating to the Pima Animal Care Center.
10. Persons employed by the COUNTY in performance of services and functions
pursuant to this Agreement shall have no claim to pension, civil service or other employees'
rights granted by the TOWN to its officers and employees.
11. The Parties stipulate and agree that COUNTY is not an employee of the TOWN, and
is performing its duties hereunder as an independent contractor, supplying its own employees,
and maintaining its own insurance, worker's compensation, and internal accounting. The
TOWN in no way controls, directs or supervises the actions of the COUNTY under this
Agreement.
12. Each Party (as `indemnitor') agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the
other Party (as `indemnitee') from and against any and all claims, losses, liability, costs, or
expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees) (hereinafter collectively referred to as `claims')
arising out of bodily injury of any person (including death) or property damage, but only to the
extent that such claims which result in vicarious/derivative liability to the indemnitee are caused
by the act, omission, negligence, misconduct, or other, fault of the indemnitor, its officers, 1
officials, agents, employees, or volunteers.
g
1 ethisAgreement shall
13. T� cost of services charged to TOWN by COUNTY under Ag e
include those costs associated with the use and access to certain departments within the
COUNTY by the Town Enforcement Agents, which use and access is necessary for the .
performance of services and functions pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to:
3
r r '
(a) Pima County Health Care System;
(b) Pima'County Health Department;
(c) Pima.Cnty Facilities.Management Department; • _ �....
(d) Pima County Automotive Services Department;
(e) Pima County Transportation &Flood Control
pDepartment;
(f) Wastewater Management Department; and
(g) Pima County Information Services Department.
14. The COUNTY, through its Health Department Director, shall submit to the'TOWN
on an annual basis, prior to June 30, a statement of year to date receipts, disbursement and a
projected year end balance of the Pima County Rabies Control Fund by jurisdiction.
In the event that the annual TOWN disbursement exceeds the annual TOWN receipts, the
TOWN shall deposit funds sufficient to cover the TOWN deficit in the Pima County Rabies
Control Fund within thirty(30) days after official request for funds.
Should there be a TOWN surplus in the Pima County Rabies Control Fund, such surplus
shall be refunded to the TOWN. The procedure set forth herein shall be followed for eachY ear
during the term of this Agreement beginning with the Fiscal Year from July 1, 2006 through
g
June 30, 2007.
III. DURATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE:
15. The term of this Agreement shall become effective upon recordation at the Pima
County Recorder's Office, and shall continue until June 30, 2008.
16. This Agreement may be renewed for an additional term of two (2) years upon mutual
agreement of the Parties, effective upon filing the original executed renewal agreement with the
Pima County Recorder's Office. 2.,
8
IV. APPLICABLE LAW:
2
.17. This Agreement and all obligations upon the COUNTY or TOWN arising
therefrom
shall be subject to any limitations of budget law or other applicable local law or regulation. The
pp gt
•
4
• •
Parties hereto shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local statutes, ordinances,
regulations, rules, standards and executive orders. .
Ve..TERMINATION:......... _ _
18. The Agreement may be terminated by either Party, with or without cause, upon sixty
Y
(60) days written notice. Upon termination, a final statement shall be sent to the TOWN by the
Pima County Animal Care Center. Within thirty (30) days of receipt thereof, the TOWN shall
tender payment of any deficit or the Pima County Animal Care Center shall tender payment of
any surplus.
VI. ASSIGNMENT:
19. Any assignment or attempted assignment of this Agreement by either Party without
the prior written consent of the other Party shall be void.
VII. NON-WAIVER:
20. The failure of either Party to insist upon the complete performance of any of the
terms and provisions of this Agreement to be performed on the part of the other, or to take any
action permitted as a result thereof, shall not constitute a waiver or relinquishment of the right to
insist upon full and complete performance of the same, or any other covenant or condition, either
in the past or in the future, The acceptance by either Party of sums less than may be due and
owing it at any time shall not constitute an accord and satisfaction.
VIII. CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
9
\\rr\\
21, This Agreement is subject to theprovisions of A.R.S. 38-511.
§
2
9
9
5
IX. NON-APPROPRIATION:
22. Notwithstanding any other provisions in this Agreement, this Agreement may be
terminated with or without sixty (60) days notice if the County Board of Supervisors doe§ not
appropriate sufficient funds for the purpose of maintaining this Agreement.
X. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT:
23. The Parties shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (Public Law 101.336, 42 U.S.C. 12101-12213) and all applicable federal
regulations under the Act, including 28 CFR Parts 35 and 36.
XI. NQN-WARRANTY:
24. The Parties do not warrant their respective right or power to enter into this
Agreement and if the same is declared null and void by court action initiated by third persons,
there shall be no liability to the other Party by reason of such action or by reason of the
Agreement.
XII. WORKERS' COMPENSATION
25. Each Party shall post the notices require by A.R.S. § 23-1022(E) advising
employees who provide services pursuant to this agreement that they are deemed by the laws of
Arizona to be employees of both public agencies for the purposes of workers' compensation.
XIII. ENTIRE AGREEMENT:
2I
9
1,9
26. This document contains the entire Agreement between the Parties and it may not be
modified, amended, altered or extended except•by a written amendment executed by both Parties.
9
2
6
A .111
•
•
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this day of C t ober 2006.
PIMA COUNTY TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, a Municipal
Corporation.
By: - �,/� By:
ichard Elias,as, ( hair an Mayor
Board of Supervisors
ATTEST ATTEST
By: /,ice' .��: ...�.i .`moi By:
Clerk of the Board To Clerk
By: 41111
Dennis W. Douglas, Director
Pima County Health Department
This intergovernmental Agreement which is a contract between public agencies has been
reviewed pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-951 by the undersigned Town Attorney and Deputy County
Attorney who have determined that it is in proper form and is within the powers and authority
granted under the laws of the State of Arizona.
B �+ .
�►eputy County Attorney
By:
Tow i Attorney
1.
7
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL
CC-53 Item #: 2.
TC Study Session
Date: 04/14/2010
Requested by: Paul Popelka, Acting Planning and Zoning Director
Submitted By: Paul Popelka, Planning and Zoning
Department: Planning and Zoning
Information
SUBJECT:
Review of Historic Preservation Commission Inventory of Cultural Resources
SUMMARY:
Over the past several months the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) has worked with William Self
Associates to prepare "Rock Art, Ranch, and Residence: Cultural Resources in the Town of Oro Valley".
The Final Report has been approved by the HPC for presentation to Town Council, and copies were
distributed March 23 for your review. The report presents the first phase of work to inventory all cultural
resources within the Oro Valley Planning Area, providing the basis for further documentation and
evaluation of cultural resources. A second phase will include a historic preservation plan for the
community, further investigation and potential nomination of cultural resources.
This work will lead to an increased understanding and public awareness of Oro Valley's cultural
resources, its unique historic character, and more effective community planning.
DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this inventory is to identify significant cultural resources, both prehistoric and historic,
through a process of inventory, evaluation and documentation. The inventory provides a comprehensive
summary of resources, and an evaluation process to determine which identified properties meet defined
criteria of historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural significance and warrant further
documentation. That information will provide the basis for a Preservation Plan that defines policies,
procedures, and strategies for maintaining and preserving those resources.
The importance of this inventory was initially defined by goals and policies in the Oro Valley General
Plan adopted in June 2005:
• To preserve the unique archaeological, cultural, and historic resources within Oro Valley to the degree
not already regulated by the State of Arizona
• To maximize interpretive opportunities associated with cultural resources as a means of providing
important insight into the heritage of the community
In support of those goals, the Town has been designated a Certified Local Government, forming a
partnership with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) that has already resulted in the
successful nomination of Steam Pump Ranch to the National Register of Historic Places. The CLG also
calls for the Historic Preservation Commission to maintain a detailed inventory of cultural resources.
The Cultural Resources Inventory Phase I includes the following:
• Archival Research
The study area for this first phase is defined by the Planning Area in the Town of Oro Valley General
Plan Update 2005. This research of several archives provides a comprehensive compilation of
resources based on a complete records search.
• Historic Context of Oro Valley
This narrative places the origins and development of Oro Valley in its historic context. Organized in a
chronological fashion, the context includes social, political, ethnic and economic factors that influenced
the physical development of the town. The summary includes prehistoric water utilization and technology,
homesteading in Arizona, the role of Native Americans, pioneer ranching families, the overall role of the
Town's setting along the Canada del Oro, and growth of the Tucson Metropolitan Area from 1947-1973.
• Initial Survey of Cultural Resources
Based on aerial photography, historic structures identified in the research have been further
documented. The survey notes the general distribution of buildings, structures, and neighborhoods
representing different architectural styles, periods, and modes of construction, and also provides the
basis for decisions on which resources to further document. Evaluations of properties and structures are
provided to determine whether identified properties meet defined criteria of historical, architectural,
archaeological, or cultural significance.
Phase II includes the following:
• Preservation Plan
The survey data will be used to create a Preservation Plan to identify significant historic resources
recommended for preservation. The plan will include policies, procedures, and strategies for treatment
and conservation.
• Detailed Survey and Documentation of Historic Resources
Further documentation of significant historic properties and structures may be provided in this survey as
determined in the extent of work in Phase II. Additional information would include mapping and noting
the characteristics of each property or structure.
• Historic Designation
Further work could also include nomination of a historic neighborhood to the National Register of Historic
Places.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Planning & Zoning Department budget for FY 2009-10 includes an authorized amount of$50,000 for
preparation of a Cultural Resources Inventory of Oro Valley. To date, approximately $39,000 has been
spent for Phase I of the Cultural Resources Inventory. Additional funding beyond the $50,000
budget may be required to initiate and implement Phase II, which includes a Preservation Plan, public
outreach programs, and possible historic neighborhood designation(s). This additional funding is
anticipated to range up to $30,000 which Council would need to approve in next year's budget.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff and the Historic Preservation Commission are seeking Town Council acceptance of"Rock Art,
Ranch, and Residence: Cultural Resources in the Town of Oro Valley" at a future Council meeting. Staff
and the Historic Preservation Commision are also seeking general direction for continuing work in Phase
II of the Cultural Resources Inventory.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
This item is for information and review.
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Rock Art, Ranch, and Residence:
Cultural Resources in the Town of Oro Valley
and Its Planning Area
FINAL REPORT
, .- -, — " 1
„,..,.:...„.._,,.......:, . .,..„, ....... ,
...,,,,,,,:,,c,,,46,: t<••,.,. ,,.ri...4":, 1,40,
,s ,„. , ,...-.!.:!,
. . ,
,,,,,...... ,f,„„
,—.,' : ,
.„.,,:.,,,,,..t„,:,,,,....,s7c; , „...,,,,,.,...,.(6;.', „...!,,,,..!!...! ,.,!,,.;: '
If F �j tit .,.:.,..,..:„A.,,
_ ,r e
, -'
x
;:,‘ t
e`�
d ��# r
Prepared by
., Nfk, .,.k , .,
.;',, , id' /
s
` °°.Y/ c �d: Et q.14,:i:,;,,,,..-,;,:.:1, x Scott O'Mack, M.A.
f' ,,,„0,''.s PSS'E ,
--;,:s.....,:,.‘,.; !,1,' ,„:• „ti. ...,, '''''''''
With contributions by
f g �' Michael J. Boley, Ralph Comet', Brandon
i
Ga- Melanie J
G er, Mea ie Me Biros anet
g
-' ,,..00--,,,,ty(k., N. .tOsh, '''''''•
h?
Parkhurst, Poster Frost Associates,John
:-:-/17.,.:—,7i':--- C. Ravesloot, and Trevor Self
ljr
Ly '1 ....,,,,;,,,,,;,,,,..,,,a,
at `'
BE . ,f'i„aaFsf:«' —:::--'y`.-..�”.<ae ,a s ,y/,ya L, .:,y,s an%,1 i8'' y .ww ai-- sem,
',...;-:•.,...,r•'.....•'''""—
R ,5!5 T xq�ay Vim? iOuffi' . .. ...,1..:;:.. mss.55555;, .ti'. '!�''p. /... `:
✓'
Submitted to
' :: A z�qs 3 3 .,,,,,,,.,,,:::-..,.,.,,:,,i
£ ;:
''''.' ' i ‘''. 04'
Town of Oro Valley
h < y Planning and Zoning Department
' ,.,..:.i. ott: ........:,-..,'-..
11000 N. La Canada Drive
il
4#
. - x Or
valley AZ 85737
�G� �. : .�' :. n f,Y's x ..s�,�.W'�.x wt' ,g� ' � �'�f 5 ,
Ef' ! yz,,,,,,,;.:.-,.,,,,,,,,,,,7..,.,,,..,-,;,_,
,2.'ro+
a�::y�cc �." xaY'a'" XoreX'°6 3e;s a�yv��x� "` z� s �''---11'''.:1411''..41:44';';':!'-'
§ra.,�� ,
.....-.7.77'
.,,,aas <'. t ^. .353 , s m t:.Liz a%.s x-' .,tt.au Y"
9� r.�s} roti -,:.:0,,,,,,...i„,:.,:.,.„.:,,,,,,,---
4
N 5p
.:,.r f,'.' m6r -i „Lc ,..:ZX..aG?l.>a:a � ;:A,wa6a"/:3:`" Nk Y '.: '. y.Y :'
5` WSA Technical Report No. 2009-51
� % � � yLq , Y J January 2010
� � � s^�� ma t�� s t. �
a;< qt' R A y .. .r��r ,��x� ��''f.- °le.i i �� 1
�2 y "�� a +xB 'a 3'"9f'♦♦.I� +r# ttl" �`., r�.���RAa �F�.:,y ��y%',IiiyS'�3c'�r�' `�fi
<.� ': '� :k: a 1¢'�j y'S°���.�R �f���2 :F y+,rt.�•fi,' k nt �3� ,� J:.'�
ac' T®s »�tt '�`. :d 1A'�'y stip a'i<s,F/*'ffi'i` ::-':' �'fi' &
s; .. , ,a vi al i , 3, , `'f,T.. az a y E '!<.''::.' '
� � :Y� � � ��Y:yq� 5�;�te`pt ,, t ,�+.`a�,.7:::.',-..!.:-,,,,,v,;',"
�a,d �x��� ,��'�::
' ',gyp *26.r x Fy` � s qp' i' ��F r�
s'::,05',;.7:;-:,'',.,,,._.- .--:1,.- ±';'''''''''.;:!1;:9q.'
a�,. ,y,�- . a yY4,';',„;:;-.‘„-'.:
' `''.n�>.tid�aw ."5--::::'.:L,`,,,,
.4.ay.,,�� .,.
' r s'`�d;�, y.R. b f`r i � i '�`:y &�x>r„"'*�fi...
n 5, w: �a,»�' ✓ �",� ---.4;37'
�Z •' ��, ,;
µ y i ....
^3E«,,,,.-.........7.':T...-,.,,::
`2P 'A'Or acres ..q. < z
'.....'''''''''*' A
�9 ��is 37 WPI( S If A
� � N 't: � � yam e,,I)
." •"I' Inc
Go zi s ✓ x1 x6 / .. qF
: �� � �'y""' rP-4;4'' 2424 E.Broadway Blvd Suite 100
�`w Tucson,Arizona 85719
(520)624-0101
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the results of an inventory of cultural resources in the Town of Oro Valley and
its larger planning area, prepared through a combination of archival research, historic context
development, limited field survey,and evaluation.The inventory will be used by the town in future
efforts to document and evaluate cultural resources in the community,and in the development of
an overall historic preservation plan.
The inventory showed that about 35 percent of the Town of Oro Valley and its larger planning
area (a total area of about 49,500 acres; referred to here as the study area) has been formally
surveyed for cultural resources. Beginning in 1976, 157 surveys of various sizes have identified
185 archaeological sites in the study area. Of the 185 sites, 160 are exclusively prehistoric in date,
17 are exclusively historic, and 8 have both prehistoric and historic components. Only a small
percentage of these sites have been evaluated for National Register of Historic Places eligibility,
and only two sites are currently listed on the National Register. The current condition of many of
these sites, some first recorded decades ago, is unknown. Three large prehistoric village sites—
Honey Bee Village, Sleeping Snake Village, and Romero Ruin—have been the focus of almost all
of the archaeological excavations in the study area; all three have yielded important information
on the Hohokam culture of the Tucson Basin.
One of the National Register–listed properties in the study area, the Steam Pump Ranch, is
notable both for its important association with the early historic period along the Canada del Oro
and for its preservation of examples of early ranching-related architecture, including the original
residence of the ranch owner,George Pusch.The Steam Pump Ranch is also an archaeological site
and may preserve significant buried features associated with its early history.
The inventory also showed that the study area holds two important examples of architect-
designed residences from the first half of the twentieth century, and at least four post–World
War II subdivisions that may be eligible for the National Register as residential historic districts.
Although the Town of Oro Valley was incorporated in 1974,just 35 years ago, a significant number
of the subdivisions that were developed during the two decades before incorporation are now
approaching 50 years of age, the usually accepted minimum age for National Register eligibility.
The four early subdivisions that are already probable National Register candidates—Campo Bello,
Oro Valley Estates, Shadow Mountain Estates, and Suffolk Hills—are an indication of the steadily
increasing historic significance of an area that is often considered simply a recent addition to the
landscape of metropolitan Tucson.
The inventory concludes with general recommendations for long-term planning by the Town of
Oro Valley, and specific recommendations for a second phase of the inventory.The second phase
will include the preparation of a preservation plan based on the inventory, and the expansion
of public outreach to more fully engage the Oro Valley community in the identification and
protection of its many cultural resources.
i
town and in the Tucson area as a whole. The listing of either subdivision on the National Register
would be a boon to the residents,who would receive a tax benefit for having a contributing house
in the district, and to the Town of Oro Valley,which would draw new attention to its commitment
to the effective management of cultural resources in its jurisdiction.
However many residential district nominations the town decides to pursue in the short term,
the long-term planning for the town should include regular consideration of additional district
nominations. As we indicated in Chapter 5, other subdivisions in the town not considered here
will soon approach the 45-year threshold. Not all will be suitable for nomination, but early
subdivisions constitute the most substantial undocumented cultural resources in the town, even
if an appreciation of their historic significance is still mostly uncultivated in Oro Valley.
Summary of Recommendations
Our general recommendations to the Town of Oro Valley for the next five to ten years can be
summarized in a list:
1. Archaeological Sites
a. subscribe to AZSITE as a land-managing agency
b. create a centralized archaeological archive
c. conduct geoarchaeological evaluation of selected high-sensitivity areas
d. conduct field assessment of recent impacts to selected archaeological sites
2. Sources on Oro Valley History
a. sponsor a systematic effort to collect sources on Oro Valley history, including:
• oral history interviews and transcriptions
• annual history clinics
b. conduct a curation-needs assessment for collected historical sources
c. develop a centralized repository for historical sources
d. develop exhibits on local history and archaeology
e. develop a register of local historic landmarks
3. Residential Subdivisions
a. nominate four early subdivisions as National Register districts:
Oro Valley Estates
Suffolk Hills
Campo Bello
Shadow Mountain Estates
b. regularly consider additional nominations in long-term planning
Town of Oro Valley 131 William Self Associates, Inc.
Cultural Resources Inventory January 2010
Our specific recommendations for Phase Two of the inventory relate to two tasks: preparing a
preservation plan, and expanding public outreach.
1. Preservation Plan
The Phase One inventory has brought together much valuable information about the cultural
resources of Oro Valley and how these resources embody the history and cultural heritage of
the town. Using the results of the inventory and our general recommendations for additional
cultural resources work, an effective preservation plan can now be assembled that will help the
town set priorities and make decisions about the documentation,evaluation, and preservation of
resources as development projects in the town are proposed and carried out. The preservation
plan should be concise (5 to 10 pages) and include a distillation of the inventory findings. The
general recommendations presented here should be the focus of the plan. It is also important
that the plan be easily understood by a wide audience and consistent with the standards of the
Arizona SHPO, the Arizona State Museum, the National Register, and the cultural resource goals
and standards already established by the Town of Oro Valley.
2. Public Outreach
The Phase One inventory included the preparation of a four-page brochure summarizing the goals
and results of the inventory and geared to a general audience. The inventory also included an
Open House held in the town council chambers, with a slide show and large-format posters (text
and photographs) focused on the various aspects of the inventory. All of these materials were
intended to inform Oro Valley residents of the results of the inventory and to encourage their
participation, but only a small number of the town's residents have been able to take advantage
of these opportunities. We recommend that an additional effort be made in Phase Two to involve
the public in the results of the inventory and to encourage public participation in the preservation
of the town's cultural resources. This effort could include three items in particular:
a. publication of the Phase One brochure in a high-quality color format, slightly revised to
reflect completion of the inventory, with 2,000-3,000 copies printed; the brochure could
be distributed both by the town at public locations and by the Oro Valley Historic Preser-
vation Commission in its ongoing outreach efforts
b. making the Phase One inventory report easily available on CD (50-100 copies), and for
download on the town website; the town should also consider having 100 perfect-bound
hard copies of the inventory report printed for targeted distribution
c. hosting a public lecture series on the cultural resources of Oro Valley, sponsored by the
Oro Valley Historic Preservation Commission in cooperation with the Oro Valley Historical
Society
Town of Oro Valley 132 William Self Associates, Inc.
Cultural Resources Inventory January 2010
Rock Art, Ranch, and Residence:
Cultural Resources in the Town of Oro Valley
and Its Planning Area
FINAL REPORT
* -, ,.. ,
, ,,,,, ,,,,r.
6F•,°` ji
M 3 Kyr`` ,
'H55, \ R j2'. .. i
.: 0 '
Jt y
yy ''Q Q / Z yGFQ i.
Sx�i Yf r� t �y . r
s
z
;, fgt., ,c*--1, , � -: Prepared by
;d�S '� o .�L Scott O Mack, M.A.
With contributions by
Michael J. Boley, Ralph Comey, Brandon
•
1,1r;)''''
,.,
a eMelanie e elro Janet
_,-,--:-.;-:-."-:-'7_,,:il'..1:i, ..--- ' * '''',,,— ,••• ')
= - Parkhurst, Poster Frost Associates,John
Min C. Ravesloot and Trevor Self
. y - f./ �t •
212 k
sf. .wo.sf{«.�'-.fi...�..«�`�.'•..<x a :,<+r ,q 555
<c, s y' �.
d { i I� k .,�,s--',,,,,",,,:,.,-"7,57,--..;'`
.r ;.s«.-aC 7°'
y,�� me •42"x'F7e.�ziY 9sx:
i.2»•mra.;r�.': � 5a?`"`"'�"" ^xi r "akz:. `�' ,ess>,i.z <x3 X<'>tk::
iro:.o:a?u<'3's 'sxsm s .. -'-w..i ;:a ',""qji"
Submitted to
j'', ',,' , Town of Oro Valley
a 'sd�4a 11)::4,,, J i:�" � -- � i : ' 2F j'.� ��K i �J83-� <' s .,'41:11
1 ""' ; ' �' � , q';s. Planning and Zoning Department
1 r n 3 S 5a n.
3 `Q'� '� Q gL Q h+f`A'ham'@ '/�! N
£ i, � �Q 11000 N. La Canada Drive
xR31WL :�'
-o-'tyi,'9q /� f �2 ��yxF .:� xry.»s/yi✓ :'� s a•�
zr5 �F„�> Oro Valley, AZ 85737
m k3s�i i i'` i y�x .x a� QUA"' i, <s"la g{ `5`: s f
2�.. ,, y { Y J/ �. ,y��'� .;'`l2�G y-
k9F s'` +" ✓`"'�'`�<. '.' "�Y.s, �`_gy 'Q%kY.s-,q '
WSA Technical Report No. 2009-51
y,:
,,,,,,--',,,f„,,,',
S .J b�'d?o'75Q.'ST,f yd a`eS'u �i:� 5,fi•'1. ; •'4'¢ y:f ' •..
Y F gy$,� 1 S'4 i°JC3X M��tl :��s;_... � �;;� .� . January 2010
,t.,%, :. ak ,,4 s , t 1�.A'/p't#' ;.'r P„i, a •iz, ,J b" ,, >,
':'''r.O.,,,,,,-,::';''..1,,„. „:
s �` '..- s ?°¢soa.",r,`.:k a"a Far ffi f :` Q� "�� =�i p
E <:
_ - .-^-:',: '''''''',:':.:17...4,),7—, :3,,„ 71''''''''*: --...,,:..-s:":,:•`:::;::,:-"At, .- ' ,'„, : A ' '''''' ''''''''
'-' ,.,,,,,r' - 7-'''s':; „0,;,,,.,, ,„„.. , . . . , i,
...,,,,, ,,,,,,..,,,s,„ ,, .., „ i,„:,
.,. ,, ,...
i
..„. „ ..,,,__...
r „,,,,„ „,.,...,„ ,,, ,,. ,„,,,,, , -
D b.N i$. x 3Y�>„,:,._
�,�
F Ay'a
�•z 'i x
'� �J`A William Self Associates,Inc.
x'Q.
:� f y/� s y 2424 E.Broadway Blvd Suite 100
”' Tucson,Arizona 85719
{520)624-0101
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the results of an inventory of cultural resources in the Town of Oro Valley and
its larger planning area, prepared through a combination of archival research, historic context
development,limited field survey,and evaluation.The inventory will be used by the town in future
efforts to document and evaluate cultural resources in the community,and in the development of
an overall historic preservation plan.
The inventory showed that about 35 percent of the Town of Oro Valley and its larger planning
area (a total area of about 49,500 acres; referred to here as the study area) has been formally
surveyed for cultural resources. Beginning in 1976, 157 surveys of various sizes have identified
185 archaeological sites in the study area. Of the 185 sites, 160 are exclusively prehistoric in date,
17 are exclusively historic, and 8 have both prehistoric and historic components. Only a small
percentage of these sites have been evaluated for National Register of Historic Places eligibility,
and only two sites are currently listed on the National Register. The current condition of many of
these sites, some first recorded decades ago, is unknown. Three large prehistoric village sites—
Honey Bee Village, Sleeping Snake Village, and Romero Ruin—have been the focus of almost all
of the archaeological excavations in the study area; all three have yielded important information
on the Hohokam culture of the Tucson Basin.
One of the National Register–listed properties in the study area, the Steam Pump Ranch, is
notable both for its important association with the early historic period along the Canada del Oro
and for its preservation of examples of early ranching-related architecture, including the original
residence of the ranch owner,George Pusch.The Steam Pump Ranch is also an archaeological site
and may preserve significant buried features associated with its early history.
The inventory also showed that the study area holds two important examples of architect-
designed residences from the first half of the twentieth century, and at least four post–World
War II subdivisions that may be eligible for the National Register as residential historic districts.
Although the Town of Oro Valley was incorporated in 1974,just 35 years ago, a significant number
of the subdivisions that were developed during the two decades before incorporation are now
approaching 50 years of age, the usually accepted minimum age for National Register eligibility.
The four early subdivisions that are already probable National Register candidates—Campo Bello,
Oro Valley Estates, Shadow Mountain Estates, and Suffolk Hills—are an indication of the steadily
increasing historic significance of an area that is often considered simply a recent addition to the
landscape of metropolitan Tucson.
The inventory concludes with general recommendations for long-term planning by the Town of
Oro Valley, and specific recommendations for a second phase of the inventory. The second phase
will include the preparation of a preservation plan based on the inventory, and the expansion
of public outreach to more fully engage the Oro Valley community in the identification and
protection of its many cultural resources.
town and in the Tucson area as a whole.The listing of either subdivision on the National Register
would be a boon to the residents,who would receive a tax benefit for having a contributing house
in the district, and to the Town of Oro Valley,which would draw new attention to its commitment
to the effective management of cultural resources in its jurisdiction.
However many residential district nominations the town decides to pursue in the short term,
the long-term planning for the town should include regular consideration of additional district
nominations. As we indicated in Chapter 5, other subdivisions in the town not considered here
will soon approach the 45-year threshold. Not all will be suitable for nomination, but early
subdivisions constitute the most substantial undocumented cultural resources in the town, even
if an appreciation of their historic significance is still mostly uncultivated in Oro Valley.
Summary of Recommendations
Our general recommendations to the Town of Oro Valley for the next five to ten years can be
summarized in a list:
1. Archaeological Sites
a. subscribe to AZSITE as a land-managing agency
b. create a centralized archaeological archive
c. conduct geoarchaeological evaluation of selected high-sensitivity areas
d. conduct field assessment of recent impacts to selected archaeological sites
2. Sources on Oro Valley History
a. sponsor a systematic effort to collect sources on Oro Valley history, including:
• oral history interviews and transcriptions
• annual history clinics
b. conduct a curation-needs assessment for collected historical sources
c. develop a centralized repository for historical sources
d. develop exhibits on local history and archaeology
e. develop a register of local historic landmarks
3. Residential Subdivisions
a. nominate four early subdivisions as National Register districts:
Oro Valley Estates
Suffolk Hills
Campo Bello
Shadow Mountain Estates
b. regularly consider additional nominations in long-term planning
Town of Oro Valley 131 William Self Associates, Inc.
Cultural Resources Inventory January 2010
•
Our specific recommendations for Phase Two of the inventory relate to two tasks: preparing a
preservation plan, and expanding public outreach.
1. Preservation Plan
The Phase One inventory has brought together much valuable information about the cultural
resources of Oro Valley and how these resources embody the history and cultural heritage of
the town. Using the results of the inventory and our general recommendations for additional
cultural resources work, an effective preservation plan can now be assembled that will help the
town set priorities and make decisions about the documentation,evaluation, and preservation of
resources as development projects in the town are proposed and carried out. The preservation
plan should be concise (5 to 10 pages) and include a distillation of the inventory findings. The
general recommendations presented here should be the focus of the plan. It is also important
that the plan be easily understood by a wide audience and consistent with the standards of the
Arizona SHPO, the Arizona State Museum, the National Register, and the cultural resource goals
and standards already established by the Town of Oro Valley.
2. Public Outreach
The Phase One inventory included the preparation of a four-page brochure summarizing the goals
and results of the inventory and geared to a general audience. The inventory also included an
Open House held in the town council chambers, with a slide show and large-format posters (text
and photographs) focused on the various aspects of the inventory. All of these materials were
intended to inform Oro Valley residents of the results of the inventory and to encourage their
participation, but only a small number of the town's residents have been able to take advantage
of these opportunities.We recommend that an additional effort be made in Phase Two to involve
the public in the results of the inventory and to encourage public participation in the preservation
of the town's cultural resources. This effort could include three items in particular:
a. publication of the Phase One brochure in a high-quality color format, slightly revised to
reflect completion of the inventory, with 2,000-3,000 copies printed; the brochure could
be distributed both by the town at public locations and by the Oro Valley Historic Preser-
vation Commission in its ongoing outreach efforts
b. making the Phase One inventory report easily available on CD (50-100 copies), and for
download on the town website; the town should also consider having 100 perfect-bound
hard copies of the inventory report printed for targeted distribution
c. hosting a public lecture series on the cultural resources of Oro Valley, sponsored by the
Oro Valley Historic Preservation Commission in cooperation with the Oro Valley Historical
Society
Town of Oro Valley 132 William Self Associates, Inc.
Cultural Resources Inventory January 2010,
Rock Art, Ranch, and Residence:
Cultural Resources in the Town of Oro Valley
and Its Planning Area
FINAL REPORT
h
9
� �, _ fie,. Y�+�.w
! D
!.,,f,,,.:,: ,.,,,i, / ,.... ,,i .;,,..:::,!!;.,:::•.;:i.,,,,75:,..,,,,t77,:ti.e....,:".:.„.iciii,'..**;i:..-.:.,..•'.;:,,0!).i.,,,:i.:.:::::.,...,:::','#':,,,-,
,,.,,.., ‘,,, fy 7 -, :,,:.,,,,,t--......i. ,..„,,,,,I;L.,--•:-.ii„...„,-„:„.n....p..:,...": ../..,:...i.4....,...- . ..
'''' ''''''s' 4 / / '..."''':-',/':1,'-.1'
4* ''ei' t s` ' fi4:1 �� ;bas
'''''l'''':':'"1:''''';''..-1141::::''.:.#;:iii::.:.,;--.., 4,--;',...
x 1
„,,.„1,t
i,i, tiv,,,, , ,,,,,,,v
..':' 1-:'''''j 'sS ,... w } s � Prepared by
,' '' '' `$ '' : ''t aro • .."::•:::',i,'...,;',::::;;;;,.,':
L / ScottO'Mac
k, M.A.
-•':.'''-'''''..--.1,'....::::',4...; ,,,,'''''.....:-:',...,::,
1.L� > 'f
With contributions by
:,::,, .' ".„,i'l . :,..,,,,1:; Michael J. Boley, Ralph Comey, Brandon
4
IT 4 f';'''
z�.. Gabler, Melanie Medeiro Janet
g
Parkhurst, Poster Frost Associates,John
g
7 Y • s �, y Y txi � C. Ravesloot and Trevor Self
,.'� ,.r,':-..'!'-'2-;-;',..
,�.xit;, *�a"rx�;rS�`.x ?' 's• 's� <s � �.'� a£. � ,xi � a i
.�'":'�'�a6 ex 4 '�. 3?°.,oe'sy�e-p y s� aaY t '.--•;tse�La-�'
¢xi�v,. saet?:SBa. ,r rano . `wp.ar. ,..
,,;,.,.xa..e�IDn:ca,atw aaat ?�,a�r`3�' ,2-..- .:'°$'�&t'C` ��=.''k<d?5;..x:.� z"�`��,<'�`°�..^�,'��
<
d
1
I Submitted to
Town of Oro Valley
„ _ --,---;i0v,i411:. ' I V. I ' „exp X PI
'''‘
' ' anning and Zoning Department
i
'Iwrwilimum*. ' ill.t1 : ' 'issii',,:'' 1........:- ,i''',,......:, ./::. . ,f7,:j.0.;'. 11000 N. La Canada Drive
� ax s . y Oro Valley, AZ 85737
WSA Technical Report No. 2009-51
„,,,,,..,4„.4:,,,;,v:/:„;,...„;.:,,,,,„,,,,e,
'
� ,
'
January 2010� lf - R- e�°$1 �<` t��! `," � a ny t` ,,<e � r N!z�i6d�x -OJ,e }, 4' ,•,,t."t ,,F 7: yY� t r,N° 'q, h + ; 4xi
e'--,-:, -',-..:*oki,--r:--..'-', •••••
::';'.i.,7:-..,:''7,.:,:!!:':,.4'.',::::--,..;:::,*..141)„„6...,:,',-:',:', '''' :7,--:,.''''..-:-4'.:',...,..i4:.;-...,1t,.:44.,:..
.{;,,,:t.,..-42:-,•, --.,• '''' -.-, --F '':;i,';;',.:',;:!..'.7iti',,,-:::.
•
' i �'A ”+e; " .'.'..:.,,,:,-,:i.,-,. t mowt - '-'' , � '"a^ �� .',':,.,,,'''',.:',.. ,,.;'.'i.
'. a , '
''''''*'1.4.;'..',','-."....-,:r.....,.:4' „''..:,4444' ','.';;;,f,•:',.- -''''''.: , '',',,, ,..
---- - F7----r------ ,
....._,..,
t ,,, .
.,.. ,..„
, , ,
t ..:....."...........,. _ ..,_:,,,, .--...,.....;
,,. _.,........,
_._ ,..,=.7........,-„. ,....-3,;__,
r
- .
„,......._.,.... ... , .. .• . .,. .. _
_ , .:. --,. ..........
--- - . . - . — -_- , -
. .. - .... ..
y
...._......„.., __ ... ..., s
. ,. ,.. ,
,._,...„.......,.... , . „..... William Self Associates,Inc.
,. —,,,.----.,„ -
..,.,.. .....„... ,,,,,
. .,.......,„..... y 2424 E.Broadway Blvd.,Suite 100
WSA85719
Tucson,Arizona
( 2 )6240101
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the results of an inventory of cultural resources in the Town of Oro Valley and
its larger planning area, prepared through a combination of archival research, historic context
development, limited field survey,and evaluation.The inventory will be used by the town in future
efforts to document and evaluate cultural resources in the community, and in the development of
an overall historic preservation plan.
The inventory showed that about 35 percent of the Town of Oro Valley and its larger planning
area (a total area of about 49,500 acres; referred to here as the study area) has been formally
surveyed for cultural resources. Beginning in 1976, 157 surveys of various sizes have identified
185 archaeological sites in the study area. Of the 185 sites, 160 are exclusively prehistoric in date,
17 are exclusively historic, and 8 have both prehistoric and historic components. Only a small
percentage of these sites have been evaluated for National Register of Historic Places eligibility,
and only two sites are currently listed on the National Register. The current condition of many of
these sites, some first recorded decades ago, is unknown. Three large prehistoric village sites—
Honey Bee Village, Sleeping Snake Village, and Romero Ruin—have been the focus of almost all
of the archaeological excavations in the study area; all three have yielded important information
on the Hohokam culture of the Tucson Basin.
One of the National Register–listed properties in the study area, the Steam Pump Ranch, is
notable both for its important association with the early historic period along the Canada del Oro
and for its preservation of examples of early ranching-related architecture, including the original
residence of the ranch owner,George Pusch.The Steam Pump Ranch is also an archaeological site
and may preserve significant buried features associated with its early history.
The inventory also showed that the study area holds two important examples of architect-
designed residences from the first half of the twentieth century, and at least four post–World
War II subdivisions that may be eligible for the National Register as residential historic districts.
Although the Town of Oro Valley was incorporated in 1974,just 35 years ago,a significant number
of the subdivisions that were developed during the two decades before incorporation are now
approaching 50 years of age, the usually accepted minimum age for National Register eligibility.
The four early subdivisions that are already probable National Register candidates—Campo Bello,
Oro Valley Estates, Shadow Mountain Estates, and Suffolk Hills—are an indication of the steadily
increasing historic significance of an area that is often considered simply a recent addition to the
landscape of metropolitan Tucson.
The inventory concludes with general recommendations for long-term planning by the Town of
Oro Valley, and specific recommendations for a second phase of the inventory.The second phase
will include the preparation of a preservation plan based on the inventory, and the expansion
of public outreach to more fully engage the Oro Valley community in the identification and
protection of its many cultural resources.
i
town and in the Tucson area as a whole. The listing of either subdivision on the National Register
would be a boon to the residents,who would receive a tax benefit for having a contributing house
in the district, and to the Town of Oro Valley,which would draw new attention to its commitment
to the effective management of cultural resources in its jurisdiction.
However many residential district nominations the town decides to pursue in the short term,
the long-term planning for the town should include regular consideration of additional district
nominations. As we indicated in Chapter 5, other subdivisions in the town not considered here
will soon approach the 45-year threshold. Not all will be suitable for nomination, but early
subdivisions constitute the most substantial undocumented cultural resources in the town, even
if an appreciation of their historic significance is still mostly uncultivated in Oro Valley.
Summary of Recommendations
Our general recommendations to the Town of Oro Valley for the next five to ten years can be
summarized in a list:
1. Archaeological Sites
a. subscribe to AZSITE as a land-managing agency
b. create a centralized archaeological archive
c. conduct geoarchaeological evaluation of selected high-sensitivity areas
d. conduct field assessment of recent impacts to selected archaeological sites
2. Sources on Oro Valley History
a. sponsor a systematic effort to collect sources on Oro Valley history, including:
• oral history interviews and transcriptions
• annual history clinics
b. conduct a curation-needs assessment for collected historical sources
c. develop a centralized repository for historical sources
d. develop exhibits on local history and archaeology
e. develop a register of local historic landmarks
3. Residential Subdivisions
a. nominate four early subdivisions as National Register districts:
Oro Valley Estates
Suffolk Hills
Campo Bello
Shadow Mountain Estates
b. regularly consider additional nominations in long-term planning
Town of Oro Valley 131 William Self Associates, Inc,
Cultural Resources Inventory January 2010
Our specific recommendations for Phase Two of the inventory relate to two tasks: preparing a
preservation plan, and expanding public outreach.
1. Preservation Plan
The Phase One inventory has brought together much valuable information about the cultural
resources of Oro Valley and how these resources embody the history and cultural heritage of
the town. Using the results of the inventory and our general recommendations for additional
cultural resources work, an effective preservation plan can now be assembled that will help the
town set priorities and make decisions about the documentation, evaluation, and preservation of
resources as development projects in the town are proposed and carried out. The preservation
plan should be concise (5 to 10 pages) and include a distillation of the inventory findings. The
general recommendations presented here should be the focus of the plan. It is also important
that the plan be easily understood by a wide audience and consistent with the standards of the
Arizona SHPO, the Arizona State Museum, the National Register, and the cultural resource goals
and standards already established by the Town of Oro Valley.
2. Public Outreach
The Phase One inventory included the preparation of a four-page brochure summarizing the goals
and results of the inventory and geared to a general audience. The inventory also included an
Open House held in the town council chambers, with a slide show and large-format posters (text
and photographs) focused on the various aspects of the inventory. All of these materials were
intended to inform Oro Valley residents of the results of the inventory and to encourage their
participation, but only a small number of the town's residents have been able to take advantage
of these opportunities. We recommend that an additional effort be made in Phase Two to involve
the public in the results of the inventory and to encourage public participation in the preservation
of the town's cultural resources. This effort could include three items in particular:
a. publication of the Phase One brochure in a high-quality color format, slightly revised to
reflect completion of the inventory, with 2,000-3,000 copies printed; the brochure could
be distributed both by the town at public locations and by the Oro Valley Historic Preser-
vation Commission in its ongoing outreach efforts
b. making the Phase One inventory report easily available on CD (50-100 copies), and for
download on the town website; the town should also consider having 100 perfect-bound
hard copies of the inventory report printed for targeted distribution
c. hosting a public lecture series on the cultural resources of Oro Valley, sponsored by the
Oro Valley Historic Preservation Commission in cooperation with the Oro Valley Historical
Society
Town of Oro Valley 132 William Self Associates, Inc.
Cultural Resources Inventory January 2010
RPR 1)'6gj .. TOU
Honorable Mayor and Council:
Please note that the Surrounding Land Uses table on Page 2 of the
communication for Consent Item "C" has been corrected to reflect the rezoning
of Neighborhood 2, Phase 2 from CPI (Campus Park Industrial) to MDR
(Medium Density Residential) per Resolution (R) 08-48 in June, 2008.
Please contact Matt Michels, Senior Planner, at 229-4822 or
mmichels@orovalleyaz.gov with any questions.
Thank You
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
�'OUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 4
Surrounding Land Uses:
Direction Designation Land Use
North: Rancho Vistoso PAD— MDR RV Neighborhood 2 Phase 2
*(Property was rezoned from CPI to MDR
via Resolution No. (R)08- 48 in June, 2008)
South: Rancho Vistoso PAD—Gl Vistoso Memorial Chapel
East: Rancho Vistoso PAD—CPI Easy Care
West: Rancho Vistoso PAD—C-1 Vacant- Undeveloped Land
A. GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
The development plan/preliminary plat for Innovation Commerce Campus was reviewed utilizing the General
Plan. A noteworthy General Plan policy is listed below.
• Policy 1.3.4: "The Town shall encourage clustering of commercial developments at specific nodes or
villages that are planned with strict aesthetic and design guidelines. The Town shall discourage strip
commercial developments and free-standing pads".
The site is located just north of the intersection of Rancho Vistoso Boulevard and Vistoso Commerce Loop.
�th roadways are classified as "Urban Minor Arterial" streets. The adjoining property to the south is zoned
ommercial. The proposed professional office and industrial uses complement the existing uses in the
vicinity. A number of mitigation measures have been provided to reduce impacts on the residential area to
the north of the project.
B. RANCHO VISTOSO PAD COMPLIANCE
• Campus Park Industrial (CPI) Property Development Standards:
1. Minimum Property Size: None
2. Building Height: No building shall exceed 36 feet, except on slopes between 15 and 25 percent;
the height shall not exceed 44 feet.
3. Setbacks:
o Front Yard: Twenty-five feet(25').
o Side Yard: Twenty feet(20')or common wall.
o Rear Yard: Thirty feet(30') feet.
4. Distance between Buildings: There shall be a minimum often feet(10')between buildings.
The site design meets or exceeds these property development standards. The proposed height is thirty-six feet
(36'), one story for the industrial buildings, and twenty-two feet(22'), one story for the offices.
C. OVZCR COMPLIANCE:
04r design issues were addressed as part of the preliminary plat review. The final plat is in substantial
compliance with all applicable zoning codes.
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 3 of 4
Now
D. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
The Town of Oro Valley Department of Public Works Staff has found that all engineering related Zoning Code
items and other engineering comments have been addressed. Staff certifies and approves the engineering
portion of the Innovation Commerce Campus Final Plat.
This final plat conforms to the approved development plan/preliminary plat. In addition, engineering staff finds
that all property lines as presented on this final plat are surveyable in accordance with local and State Code.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENT:
This project has been noticed in accordance with Town procedures, which include the following:
• Several meetings with adjacent neighbors during the recent development plan process
• Property owner mailing for all property owners within 300' of subject parcel.
• HOA mailing.
• Post property.
• Post at Town Hall and on web.
No formal comments have been received to date.
AborUMMARY OF FACTORS:
Findings in Favor:
1. The final plat meets all applicable General Plan policies, Rancho Vistoso PAD and OVZCR
requirements, and OVZCR Addendum "A"Design Guidelines.
2. The Town Council approved the preliminary plat in March,2008.
3. Neighborhood mitigation was discussed and implemented as part of the preliminary plat review and
approval.
Findings Against:
1. None.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
The Town Council may wish to consider one of the following motions:
I move to [approve, approve with conditions, OR deny] 0V12-07-01 A, the final plat for the Innovation
Commerce Campus commercial subdivision.
Attachments:
1. Final Plat
'tar
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
—OUNCIL COMMUNICATION Pa2e 4 of 4
Nimor
/1 . 4
/,
Sar- . ore, 'la.. ing and Zon.ng Director
40111r
1L A. ALAI'
Craig Cival -r, Town gineer
.44114
Jeren atson, Assistant Town Manager
JOA14 .±444.,0_
David Andrews, Town Manager
Project Manager: Matt Michels, Senior Planner
cc: Jerry Edwards, PSOMAS, fax: 229.1290
Kim Acorn, Acorn & Associates, fax: 881.0995
Diana Dessy, Anthem Equity, fax: 886-1294
S:\permplus\docs\OV 1207-0 1 A\P_04-1.5-09 TC REPORT.doc
I O p [v L (o +N., c ,_ N Toa E , •
U a' U O f0 C a .A ,c,.-.)• L Ti �J •p ilt. o /
L O C U O O L o L . • '
E a C O (v a O , ,;,t
- ro
3
+� Zs
n, �• u 0 -0 amit,,,---„r;., , � r,-,
UM
-'' ,!.4
--,
p E a L O (v ‘ 4
C C o �,, ,-,:—., . -:, ,
t"r. i* - ,,'. .�,, ,x
a
W a s N L L u - rn a :p p c •a ;-... „0.,,,,.'4:V”* ' , x ;
'r� ' --«� `«� r`
kR S 4.:'' '..,-
e
,
ir
•
0.
a
TCp -0 L1 -.sL 4-' ° a O firys +.+ fi+° xA; . ' g �,1, . . � �L L •� (vQCa ,No .,. }' L x /,„,:.„.... -� x a+_ OL a >` (v cp . +" av 'N v L L L '3 C ai ! Iflll0• III
O� O ,: '...7.'"'''''''
jr.ti��'� � ;.4s' � R:: ,,>• v L L i c," c + 2' LEvLaUU MOOc c U OO + 14.'''' ,O E ' N (y a
,,,
f '1,, gr.. . .0.
,,,„,m..,....
;, #�s s : * .V( a 'UO
r. C C ap a C C +, O C (� i L vja » '4._''''
.+ r- _>- L a L a (c-,' Q cv1 a t -v�f
CC (Dm ••
�"v' , , f ; r4f?;: !t a - - `�� x a++ ro+c:R
5.
, iii • :"i, ° iY, .3. s c•..�9�'+' .LL L O c• cOL v + . �OY - daL ,- a U L- +-, C ,Fjti:4. 1 -t` ; t` ' 7. x1
1v, • a a O .LL + >.L - O v .L ...a w L p � v1 L O'O ,c p QL S. z . x '411-4.,;,;.:v, L c c .r,1-;','.'.2,- .4...„*.-.--- -!;.k-,.,..t.: ,, #` » _,ri,,,}' acv (v ,,^ c L
4 ' a Oa >' c }' C U = -a ` ,V 0 (a w
,itci, ttt - -. * s...
V. ' ' ••' ;',.,., ma +''' °'' °- o `° " a a ,.,'4 ;y. , --
-\ t '^ U3O u c ° ° r4,-,
a (O �n � a . ' 3a) (p U - du ,Y O uU c • -_ r
-•.•""'"
.....„\\::::___,.., 4.i o tgvc L .c O ,LO- a c a .13 4Y!, ~ ".H o N UavUvU 4-1 tytipc O OQ r+ N ▪ I-' .PEO pp pF--- ' i r . ., N \\.,
(v C hp L vC
_.
..+
.rte. /�.--.-3
F- a a Q • 0 ++ Ea O ``L -1)
a ' .° R.'* ,4d�. t � ,. -°^
ai a i.,`-i+.1.4.14.14.4-,a .''•7� 4E' V1 o OiU N a z c Z ..„..---
II— ...
FL- p(a0 ua - o o F- E 3 ° L t' F- v, 0 w- (v a) c 16 'LL. Cv(a,> p -a O C +.. O a L o a„; 0 L. 7O E ° Q a- L•v Q C a - E-Dac r OQO p ;C -F, a N ,CQ to a, Y `~ a "a >+, (vM N >" 4- a c > m > av v (vu c O >• a o oc = o�+ C J 2 4-0 E 3 a o o a - c aua o v a O c o p _ po v oiL 0c° of° c >o �1N
fl3
1 11
co
o r-+Wo>• caC• v >. v- a) = Ea E �- +, `(a ,` -O c ` „ a n p ^ L a (a c * u O (v -a 0 v, L (v LO Ca$ a 4- }. ►. vCJ) a3> CLv � L ▪ te. u ,.-• a42a O s > (a +x (v ( +' go, L Q o Q •d " ,o L U c *'' +., }' ,. E 45 -g L0cO :gt',),t',),i 2, 8 u n > o� 0� j2c � O ° > aippt' > L *''>• i Nc C c u a a .E C L p O103u � �o.'^c •L E O va Q . ° +.., , 8 a a ,pm = � U7 ^ a 3� o na3 ° ., 00 + O �'13 o v o v, c a a a °.Nc .c c
5—
-ri
L (0 3 (0 2 •1— -->,-..r. -rM7flf- ______”_,44,---... --- -- 0 a ,� 3 N
vi 0 C `I.•�',. �� 1'. - O c Q y
L"0 O (v L :� .' /'''',
'fig.• -c u c '� F
(v c _�0 F- �~ ., = l o a o ¢� ma. a
n3'. ; c
a)
O
ti 1
va a s ' � 1o o p .EE v p .
' au •
Q� p +., w (�. IO`o. a (cL ' > v, C
O ja `� �a •` } dv o LL u 0 11Qio� _l c I � 1.: x _ cc., o a a L ., . /
•
co 1;5
14' : in-i., -ii 4.; 0 2
O pp ,
w
iv g
v C
o. jJ
.
QoQ c > ,� ..,." • w4- rp- --WIs `
I
.., )
21
vi
't et.'
E
11'-
—
03 ns
" - ` . O c a,Q- a rO pLL- L a -D 4-, O a " a -D aOpp a z a a� „.►a :42...
j 4o+, a . O ' o +dL u Ov +� 3 •c v m> m as - a oao po L a =u1 -0p 0bO ` C 4 a t a C1 >' = O, i T.
L C c Y >•• v1 vf �' '• 'a E 'p a (� c "aD C ^ o .o •c c }; E > cla OC 0 E - c w 41-.1 ;, 5ENoo C •� ao m2 cOO •? pO 7- 3 '” ._ '5 o ._ a L .> W wO a � . n 'cu
a) L s N ° EaQ � u '-- 45 'a) c cL a +o a nvi a' c p u p ocL +' ci a s a ct c c c )a, g `°3ECCo o aOETogE . 7:' ,,30 ‘.'"" 73 - ' 7,',-
f° pvvm 3 .n. (° D C o °- vaLLSaaA > U H O O L'2 7 a5Oo v • 0 > N N p ° Q Lac .,o O u EN 2 -, 0 ° 0 2 a > O L m a`^ L o 0 o a *-' -aa (> .E .Etg -, u �0 i +' a. u u O.F- 2 . a
cu o
4.v,,,:,.. 1 4f7 1•'
,
,
to E ?.. ' • , xj+ , s , •k' ,'r
!rr ?4"a y '-•,„,04, f •,`
N N h4 C aa a
aUCCOUUco . ' o 1-• :►t ,, ' . 1•,, ' ; 'm:4-a, C C a ,. 0 :> co 'qpC U L > a pi. a 4, .• ,.., o, } { ,. � ,;.•ti# �„
4-1
jeoO -p C (o iO O co = C = o > ' ,ii
J• L ?.5 — �O L a OC 'E pa •> } „„ » � ,
a, g
444
••
4 .. $O _ ° . � ' � + 'Z .� a t a a co U > rao aN a ON
y �•- .� `i.`v i y : ; ' ' ,FO a va YE > U 46 C v., -c o ' . a+ , ;,; *. - •1�t i •N Y a . a L a L 2 Y0 � a a U 'gj � sfi ' i.•s:,a, � y I•
' 4sa • f,� 0 c co -La cd N t .N vi L co -c (1,1^ Li' v a „ : ' , , 4' "a p • *, '
• I ft•. ,N a V O a v a aL
cu FE
a >- Y C I— Y O N Y ".▪ ',/, n {,,, a >. Y a Q1 j t
1:1, N C N N �”. U V1 vl �' ,:•r- " i' .4,....;,i-� :4 i
c ? • . O U s O a L o E 'O Y a U Y - U iij ",, ',-.,-,-,-,- 1'M =:i 4 1 'w !.+ `+I.' r' '., ►'.r' :"
OC O U CLO`~ +' ▪N VY1 = '' — O i -C�!�::.,-1.4, .s / `y i' at, ,T . r'': ' .'{'4�+ ;:
a a C C 4, a - L .3 u L Y 4-' a y!"c '. ,..„1'1,' i •T' �" +ro �w�
Y O V L cC 'L C (O _ L Q L .`z"- C N O .41/4;4,2 yy •%-44$,-4.-f•
,k ♦ .•� iit..(C „.. �1 Y ..- ro B C 'L 'a aC (oCr, 1 YS` C,7 as +4„1... .,„...:.iLt1
3 o N 4- a s a u 3 v �_ o ° °3 -., ,,►.} ', il ° '.
o N u o a N
a N O O () t9 •V 'p a N t ' C .►. - . ; .ii; ;•A-. a t b" ..
O V Y L t O .L Y U O a Q i a a a,9 < i b, ,,1 . >.) .lr..wv' ts` +4.z,
N "'sem co e U co L -' O '3 a N r = L Lar.,t,• *.• ,. �+; 4 ',. 1T s,iM �1 �, 'w+P .a
a) c a 3 a0 o O N -0 E co > o .N ;, 3 v .4. , ,1., .", ' t ... +V ' `
'� � a •0 •L1 � � � 3 � yl � � � � N � � �' � a 411 p�.•��,.', r t'>�,'".��,-•.i�' .. • +•.'1i.1,��iw , j�r ., .g•.,t,,::.4.,
A
YOas a a +� c L co .a c O c 0 0 U C (-.2 i'-''' ti If./ 4.' ,e+, , ' ','•'" �`. `'+ •' 1 .,,.i:•,., y
a a a= co Y o E O N Y E ,Nn vi 'a Q N •�Q • v "'t '.r. Z.:,.....41::
+ ', {
� O "-• a � N � h0• rfl a C O O C =4! N;,� i +,." :;: .t •, � �.1. * ,,
a s a o " N t E - a�1 v N o '• `� O t O C it c �, .' ' d .'•` ' `w "
! E E ' N Y co - 2 t w9 O Y .2 tLO Y a _c a_c ,, u .+'t' , ".',.."`:,!+!..[.... I .
to co .;-_,• O — co a a E) O L.1 r» i "� �ra
N N > Z co Q a 0 4). .Q Y +F- 3 co a co a ,!;► "► • •; r j ,".--'-`,•ry ' ' , r _ t+d"'� - .-t�
Y E• , r4 r •_ /.,-:. 1'.: �1..,:......t.•
-- '• •tit ! ,i , a!
>- oa t ••u a a; a .c a a -o E a a co -vc, • . _-
(Lo C O N 'a p 45 u v co C U Y co a, , +_ O 3 +,, , r . y . ` ;..t� ,1 , . /
a �E 1 co N 00 C N co Ln .� a O u N O p a c •1'1 -'f. "ci• +l1
a > 1.3 CO
a `` N N co -C CU . -D C E t ,4-- .E = ,ig c 5•
j 4 '`•,4 s ':' ....m.,..'..,-•';'--- w""" r
->� a co :c
/',� D .c C 1) co 4-' c u '3 Y c o -c a Y O T 1 is i,+t .t '("."'+ '
U -0 LJ -2 (.7) -.F, _c U ._ Y I..'
7 a -Q `11.
3 L 1. *._ i ' ". •y#r'
"----
� (� 'p > a �f--• L N • ~ U O .c2)-
a O a i ,fr i1'N a. ,, "'•- ''. - s ... 1 . . ''
riz +, .c O a s O a L 3 o N _a a.-,1- , ,a►• ' 4► '
U _ C co C L t1 , z 30 C Y O Cr) O c • t° r ,•x'' ,sp ' ,-,„•--.-.... '"- y4.,7 3•
•L c ., c o. a C 46 C C a Y O Y N to >. i°. „ Y! .4 :t '11
3 u f° ro a � '� E N _ '
a '
0 ,� c 'L (-) c b. N t co cy u +-' O O C co h,O L L ft 'ti '► ..,1,r ,F ,,..•`_-.) :(! .!.
a L — �a-+ 4-1, L C co +••, E co a- L O Q a O c.1 t� A: - .;M �-
N o a o f° `^ 3 E a c E tzt°a 3 • E O F : `�Y"�'- 'Z''� . "',' y1L,';.. ' '' �
•— c — _
(�'� 0 (� V N v O Q c y v mc v e..:..:. �. ' ( �.:... '.<a•! .t a +�,,'.., , ' -
-.s
Q) LJ u N t o c 4,, N a Q a tot O L co N ID •`_^ j : R 7 ��«+-*".. i i ''-r'•' " `r 'ix' '" ,4 • ';''.
U ro _O O f° C u co — a a E C +j O 4=>` 4aVy' •, , . W A,.
L ` O c co co O s co -5-cc N — L •C L u ,ai U t''..,' 1, .• i,ii!,
. .�'!'";"�. 1
O ..' co -c E a co u a N o u N a tLfl e- t r• ',. t •_ ..
(� N ` O a V L •N ; N a a L N C •U II •, ,__ - �` -' ,=FF' '
CC 18
C '� O O ht) a L LL -p > Si a O U - V o . r''�I- ,w�>r '1.;.w., I n--,0_,," .,
U .a co a ',I')
N ta. E 5 vi.E a Cr)Y '-_1_-' +� L U c a O w; ` , z • ••,.,` :t�+,xA.
— a N a s L C co . O rt, CL Y N ra % ,�'`-�. '?t' ► !t3+ s
U `., , i a 'co U 0 l� v- N a co O vi N r0 C '• r
O u '5 "0 L -0 00 a = U U t -. '3 a'Q -C Pli ,. c
+-) 'L V1 'L O C 'O O a ri N L N U c0 V 0!,`
.11;.,..-9 • i . 1 + ,+ 1l,
-p ��, O N Q O -� a N co N E 2C C ................ t •�V^ ;' `, 1 ,!'. ,'
!n ro n' ' N 'a) E fO 3 `" t' . 3 co coo _c a U (13 ;1v .: ,
= O t co L
C a `-�- T
• 9 76
, (BJ 1:, } '`":,,,r,, . /-'N,•,; h AA t'...•'i,,'!I!N i N(V;,f f"I4'�'.''', ,.:1,•1s - vai• V co C a �= N
_ a Y >' .a, a �'•+ i `y•'•,'�),.i\\ ..• �. !4 t- -,:x,,,_'rl//s j � 1��'l !li 41 Q N C — N a U_
rU L p C C r {/'`'�'�v';i; S; fp��`1!!r..4--7•*".• T.,.j-� •�-]_,-,. ._ l2:4/dhN, .,`r" 3 -c a SP i ,E > +a-, E 'M
L C � Q i .,`C. �.iii,...,..j�lt'„•-..'.=./ �:•�� t`,•l� L� •^ . `� ./f /(� � � ▪ L p N L L 'i/1 C
O a ° = cco (moo ,',-,. j'.'� ..,-7:1 0K�„ .l ooi ,:t O-5 ,://.' �, '�•%i;