HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (804) ** AMENDED 12/05/08, 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA
ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION
DECEMBER 10, 2008
ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE
STUDY SESSION - AT OR AFTER 5:30 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. **DISCUSSION OF ELECTRICAL UNDERGROUNDING AND TUCSON
ELECTRIC POWER'S (TEP) SERVICE ADEQUACY AND RELIABILITY
2. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF AN ANIMAL SHELTER FOR
THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
ADJOURNMENT
POSTED: 12/03/08 AMENDED AGENDA POSTED: 12/05/08
3:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m.
cp cp
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
(520)229-4700.
4
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
Page 1 of 2
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
MEETING DATE.,
December 10, 2008
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL
FROM: Sarah S. More, Planning and Zoning Director
SUBJECT: Study Session--Discussion of Electrical Undergrounding g unding and
Tucson Electric Power's (TEP) Service Adequacy and Reliability
SUMMARY:
Over the past two years, the Town has discussed the issue of electric tric service adequacy and the Town's
undergrounding requirement with TEP. On October 25, 2006, the Town Council held a study session to meet
with TEP and on. July 11, 2007, the Town Council discussed utility franchise agreements in study session (see
attached reports). Since that time, on several occasions, TEP has indicated that they are unable to assure service
to new developments in.Town, most recently the technologicalpark development at La Canada and Tangerine
Road and a subdivision plat in Rancho Vistoso.
DISCUSSION OF ISSUE:
The Town of Oro Valley's Zoning Code requires that new utility ty lines be located underground. Further, a
conditional use permit is required for new and replacement utility lines. TEP maintains that they will share
the cost of undergrounding with the Town, in the amount an aboveground placement would cost. No
agreement between the Town and TEP has been reached.
Our initial discussion was focused on an existingwith situation with overloaded circuits at Tangerine and La
Cholla and Tangerine and La Canada. TEP indicated that these circuits were overloaded, and to remedy the
situation, TEP intends to run a new line to connect these two circuits to provide backup. There are existing
aboveground power poles on the south side of the Tangerine right-of-way,
g that TEP indicates will remain
aboveground. The TEP proposal was to build a new aboveground line,ne, on the south side of Tangerine Road
for that one mile length. This Conditional Use Permit was notranted
g , but a request to replace the line on
existing aboveground poles on La Cholla was approved bythe Town Council.cil. That line work has been
completed.
The Town of Oro Valley does collect a utility attached tax report for details). TEP has indicated that
their rate structure does not accommodate the cost of undergrounding g ng in one part of their service area. They
have indicated support for continuing the collection of the utility tax and dedicating some portion of those
funds to the cost of undergrounding.
TEP works in cooperation with the Public Works department to coordinate ordinate roadway improvements and
utility relocations. Those type of projects are most likelyto provide some cost savings. Tangerine Road is
scheduled for widening, as an RTA project, but not for severaly ears.
•
F.
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
Page 2 of 2
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
MEETING DATE: December 10, 2008
The issue of service availability and reliabilityremains �
unchanged. This issue may affect both current
customers as well as proposed new developments. TEP has short-term rt term and long-range plans to address
service to Oro Valley and nearby customers. They include new transmission and distribution lines, upgrades
of existing lines and new substations.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Town Council Communication, Electric Infrastructure
Issues, dated October 25, 2006
2.. Town Council Communication, Public UtilityFranchise ise Agreements, dated July 11, 2007
C:Larry Lucero,TEP
F:/INDIV/SarahM/TEP TC ss•121008.doc
:. / f /
1„. ‘,„
Sarah S. More, Planntn and Zoning Direct
g g or
/ 4.....,ApA
Je re Watson Assistant Town Manager
DA 4 4
David Andrews, Town Manager
•
ATTACHMENT 1
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETINGDATE:
October 25, 2006
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCIL
FROM: Sarah S. More, FAICP, Planning and Zoning Administrator
SUBJECT: Study Session — Electric Infrastructure Issues
BACKGROUND:
Staff recently met with Tucson Electric Power (TEP) representatives to discuss issues
p related to electric
infrastructure needs within the Town. Both TEP and staff agree that it is in the best interest terest of the Town to plan
together for the future to assure reliable service for the Town residents and businesses. The Town Manager
suggested that all parties discuss the issues in a study session with Town Council. TEP representatives
well
make a presentation at the study session.
DISCUSSION OF ISSUES:
1. Immediate Need to Update Circuits
Our initial discussion has focused on an existing situation with overloaded circuits
at Tangerine and La
Cholla and Tangerine and La Canada. TEP indicates that these circuits were overloaded the past two
summers. In order to address this issue, TEP intends to run a new line to connect these twocircuits circuits to
provide backup. There are existing above-ground poweroles on the south side of the Tangerine p angerine right-of-
way. According to TEP, the original plan to use the existingoles for the new lines will not work.ork. The
current TEP proposal, not formally submitted, is to build a new above-ground line, on the south side of
Tangerine Road for that one mile length. Previous Conditional Use Permits to allow aboveground ound lines
have not been approved by the Town Council.
Part of that discussion concerned the Town's code requirement for locating g new utility lines underground. The
Oro Valley Zoning Code requires a conditional use permit for new utilitypoles and above ground wires (see
issue Another is coordinating with the future roadwaywideningof Tangerine
adopted g ine Road (in the
Regional Transportation Plan) and avoiding duplicative work. One option might be
p g to allow TEP to
construct the above ground line on an interim basis pending the Tangerine Road wideningand requiring
be g that it
placed underground at that time, as a condition of a Conditional Use Permit. At this
time, staff does not
know whether the RTA funds will cover any of the cost of utilityline relocation and
. undergrounding. Another
option might be to require that the new line be placed underground, hopefully in a location that
disturbedp y will not be
by future roadway widening. Neither the Town nor TEP has identified fundingutility for utility line
undergrounding. TEP estimates the cost of undergrounding over that of putting in a new above ground line, for
this one project is approximately$433,500.
In addition,there is a current need to upgrade the wires along four existing routes within the
Town that TEP has
delayed due to the Town ordinance requiring that new wires belaced underground.p g According to TEP,
upgrading old wires will increase capacity without increasing voltage, thus providing better service ce to Town
residents. For example, lines on La Cholla are 40 years old and in serious need of replacement. As TEP
replaces lines they are upgrading to steel poles that are weathered to appear the same color
pp as the older wooden
poles. Steel poles last longer and are less susceptible to storm damage.
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MeetingDate:
October 25, 2006
Electric Infrastructure Issues Page 2
2. Addressing Growth and Development Issues Related to TEP Service
Typically, all new development— subdivisions, shopping centers, etc. —is responsible for all infrastructure
needs generated by the new development. The developer pays to underground the new utilities. TEP reviews all
new development proposals in the Town and provides comments regarding electric service and easements.
The following is a quote from a recent TEP comment on a subdivisionp lat:
"A conditional approval is being given because of the uncertainty that TEP will be able to make necessary
modifications to its electrical system in order to provide service to thisJ of Oro Valley'ect. The Town
.py has
established an ordinance which restricts the upgrading of any overhead electricalfacilities ower within the
.p
town limits. Such restrictions may prohibit TEP from rendering service under itsf led rules and regulations. "
TEP advises that the utility rate structure approved by the Arizona Corporation Commission does not include an
allowance to cover the cost of undergrounding utilities. TEP has indicted that
they do not have the capacity t
o
cover such costs.
When the Town makes roadway widening improvements that necessitate utility relocation,on, the Town is
responsible for extra costs related to undergrounding the utilities. In the recent case of Town improvements at
Tangerine and 1st Avenue, the Town chose not to underground utilities due to the lack of funding ng to cover such
costs.
Given the amount of planned and approved development that will be occurringover the next few years in Oro
.
Valley, TEP and Town staff believe that we must work together to address service needs before the issue
becomes critical. Both interruption of service to existing Town residents and business as well as thepotential
. of
lack of service to new developments is of concern to us all.
3. Planning for the Future
Cities and towns in Arizona are given exclusive control over all rights-of-waydedicated to the municipality.
This exclusive control enables the municipality to grant franchise agreements to utilities using city or town's
streets in the distribution of utility services. As an example, many cities and towns haveg ranted franchises to
electric companies to place power lines within the public right-of-way. In conjunction with this franchise, a
franchise tax can be charged by the municipality to the utility users. While there is no specific amount or
limitation in State law, the traditional amount for a franchise tax is usuallybetween 2% and 5% of the gross
.
proceeds from the sale of utility services within the city or town. The Town of Oro Valley does not currently
have a franchise agreement with our electric provider, TEP. To grant a franchise, the municipality must place
p Y
the question before the voters of the community for approval. This can be done at any one of the four
primary/general election dates designated.
TEP estimates that the cost to underground one mile of 48 kV line is $1,000,000 and $500,000 for a lower
voltage line. Establishing a franchise tax could fund that portion of the cost of new or replaced electricitylines
p
not covered by TEP, i.e. the difference between the cost to relocate an above ground line andlacin the line
p g
underground. Franchise taxes can also fund other utility costs over and above normal service —for example,
providing new solar power to the Town.
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: October 25, 2006
Electric Infrastructure Issues Page 3
Looking ahead even further, TEP plans a new transmission substation just outside of the current Town limits to
the north, located on state trust land. This substation will help address current service issues as well as future
development to the north. It will take about 3 years to bring the substation on line.
CONCLUSION
Staff and TEP agree that there are both immediate and long-term issues related to growth and development and
the provision of reliable electric service that must be addressed for the Town. Staff suggests that the Town
Council discuss this matter with TEP and provide direction to staff regarding:
1. Options for an above ground line along Tangerine Road between La Canada and La Cholla, including a
possible temporary CUP.
2. Whether the Town should work with TEP to develop a franchise agreement.
3. And, whether to pursue a franchise tax to fund projects unique to the Town, such as undergrounding.
4. Alternatively, identifying another funding source for utility undergrounding.
5. Other mechanisms for planning for future growth and development with TEP to assure adequate service.
Planning and Zoning Administrator
Community Development Director
Acting Assistant Town Manager
Town Manager
Attachments:
1. OV Zoning Code Section 25.1.N
2. TEP Handout
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY ATTACHMENT 2
Page 1 of 2
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION STUDY SESSION MEETING DATE: July 11, 2007
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND
COUNCIL
FROM: Melinda Garrahan, Town Attorney; Stacey Lemos, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Public Utility Franchise Agreements
SU..MMARY: . By Arizona state statute and tradition, municipalities have generally handled use of their
rights of way by public utilities through franchise agreements.g g nts. These are agreements
negotiated between a municipality and a public utility, which are then
Y presented for voter
approval. The term of a franchise agreement can be for up p to 25 years. The two
significant ant topics that are typically addressed by a franchise agreement
regulation bythe municipalityg nt are: (1)
of the use by a public utility of c rights of
(2)payment for such use. p way; and
In contrast to other municipalities, the Town of Oro
Valley has not entered into public utilityfranchise
agreements. Under consideration at this time a
re franchise agreements between the Town and Tucson Electric
Power, and the Town and Southwest Gas.
In addition to the issues of ROW use anda ment therefore,
a p y in the
case of TEP there is the additional issue of
paying for the cost of under grounding lines. In the event that
agreement the
Town decides not to pursue a franchise a
g nt with either or both public utilities, or in the event that
proposed franchise agreement, the
voters did not approve a
g eement, then the Town would have the o tion of enactin
regulatory ROW "license" regime togovern use of itsp g a
rights of way by one or more public utilities. In that
instance, while ROW use could be regulated, no fee for the use of the rights of way could be charged.
There are numerous examples of franchise agreements greements from all over the state that can be used as a basis s for
negotiating and drafting a franchise agreement.. Most of the provisions are routine or boiler late.
when it comes to provisions regulating the termsrights
Certainly
of the use of Town rights of way, staff—will negotiate toincluding
Works-- protect the Town's interestsPublic
in controlling access to and use of ROWs, notice r
planning and coordination, and quality of work. > p o�ect
The main purpose of the study session is for discussion of the financial issues associated with possible franchise
agreements: As to each utility, what is the fee that should be negotiated? W utility g hat, if any, utility expenses should
the funds raised by the franchise fee cover? Will there be any off-sets?
ATTACHMENTS: Joint Power Point Presentation Regarding Franchise g Franchise Agreements
• 4ta TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
Page 2 of 2
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
STUDY SESSIQN MEETING DATE: July 11, 2007
FISCAL IMPACT: To be determined at a later time depending on Council direction and the outcome
negotiations. of
•
i elinda . a,an, Town Attorney
2__ 12.S
Stacey Le s, Finance Director
r
1J rene Watson, Assistant Town.Manag er
David Andrews, Town Manager
F:Tranchise Agreements1071107 Study Session CC-franchise agreements.doc
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
Page 1 of 1
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 12/10/08
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL
FROM: DAVID ANDREWS, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF AN ANIMAL SHELTER FOR
THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
SUMMARY:
At the request of Council Members Latas and Gillaspie staff has done preliminary research on the possibility of
creating an animal shelter for the Town of Oro Valley. This item is meant to be preliminary in nature and
requires feedback from Council as to their interest in further research on some or all of the topics presented.
The attached memo details the results of staff s preliminary research based on some initial information provided
by Council Member Latas. It is presented tonight to help facilitate your discussion.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Animal Shelter Information Memo dated November 12, 2008.
David Andrews, Town Manager
Preliminary Animal Shelter Research
BACKGROUND
An animal shelter in Oro Valley became an item of interest in part due to the capacity issues of
the Pima Animal Care Center (PACC). According to a September 16, 2008 Pima County
Supervisors Memorandum, the volume of PACC, which was built in 1968, exceeds capacity by
more than 250%. Pima Animal Care Center is overburdened and lacks resources to sensitively
dispose of animals after they have been euthanized. PACC is currently considering upgrades and
expansions to their facility, but the fixes may not be enough to improve conditions.
In response to the situation at PACC, several Council Members have shown interest in
establishing an animal shelter within the Town of Oro Valley. In an effort to aid the discussion,
staff has begun to research on the following:
• Animal control, animal shelters, and other pet services in the greater
Tucson area
• Pet population and demand
• Types of shelters and services
• Capital and operating cost estimates
• Next steps
TYPES OF SHELTERS
Perhaps an animal shelter's most distinguishing factor is whether or not the shelter participates in
animal control, also known as field services. Animal control is the enforcement of state, county,
and municipal animal control statutes/ordinances, which require the services of animal control
officers who work closely with the justice system. Animal control issues including but not
limited to strays, rabid animals, dog bites, and animal cruelty. Animal control is handled in
different ways by different localities. Currently, the Town of Oro Valley relies on Pima County
to provide animal control services.
Shelters Involved With Animal Control
The first difference is demonstrated by the agency to which, the animal control officer reports.
Animal control officers in Pima County are under the Pima County Health Department. Animal
control officers in Coconino County are under the Health and Community Services Department.
Animal control officers in Flagstaff(which is in Coconino County) are under the Police
Department, and in Idaho's Ada County they report to the Idaho Humane Society. The second
difference is where the animals are impounded. Animals impounded in Flagstaff and Coconino
County are placed in the Coconino Humane Association, which is a private, nonprofit with a
housing contract(s). The Idaho Humane Society is also a private, nonprofit with housing
contract(s). Animals impounded in Pima County are placed in the Pima Animal Care Center
(PACC), which is a local governmental animal care and control agency run by the county.
Shelters Not Involved With Animal Control
There are two more types of animal shelters, private, nonprofits without housing contracts
and no-kill or limited admission shelters. In addition to PACC there are other animal shelters in
the greater Tucson area. The Southern Arizona Humane Society, located on 3450 N. Kelvin
Blvd. is a private, nonprofit without a housing contract. It does not receive any impounded
animals from animal control officers and does not turn animals away. The Hermitage Cat Shelter
at 5278 E. 21St street is southern Arizona's only no-kill shelter. A no-kill shelter only takes in a
1
Preliminary Animal Shelter Research
limited amount of animals and only euthanizes animals that are very sick and old. Animal
Shelter.Org and the Foster Animal League, an award winning shelter in Rhode Island, express
some drawbacks in regard to no-kill shelters, stating that they shift the placement of animals to
other shelters, which may fail to treat them humanely. In addition to animal shelters there are
animal placement programs and adoption leagues such as Foundations for Animals In Risk
(F.A.I.R.) and the Greyhound Adoption League, where volunteers adopt animals from shelters or
rescue them from abusive situations and arrange for their adoption.
Summary of Shelter Types
• Local government animal care and control (e.g. PACC)
• Private, nonprofit with housing and control contract (e.g. Idaho Humane Society)
• Private, nonprofit with housing contract (Coconino Humane Association)
• Private, nonprofit without housing contract (e.g. Southern Arizona Humane Society)
o Open-admittance (Southern Arizona Humane Society)
o Limited admission/no-kill (Hermitage Cat Shelter)
TYPES OF ANIMAL SHELTER SERVICES
Non-animal control services at animal shelters range from basic to the more comprehensive. The
most basic services include basic animal care and housing, licensing, vaccinations, adoptions,
spay and neuter, euthanasia, and some type of humane education. More comprehensive services
include cremation, animal ambulance and 24 hr emergency response.
Animal Control (Field Services) Special Shelter Requirements
• Enforce animal control ordinances • Dangerous
• Shelter homeless animals • Wild
• Free-roaming cats • Rabid
• Respond to nuisance complaints • Rabbits and other small animals
• Rescue mistreated/abused animals • Horses and livestock
• Investigate animal cruelty Adoption
• Animal rabies prevention and control • Counseling
• Captive wildlife and exotic pets • Foster programs
• Innovative adoption outreach
Spay & Neuter
• Subsidized Euthanasia
• Mobile clinics
Basic Care for sick and injured animals
Registration and Shots
• License More Comprehensive Medical Care
• Vaccinations • Veterinary services
• Tags • Animal ambulance
• Microchips 24 hr emergency service
2
Preliminary Animal Shelter Research
ESTIMATING PET POPULATION AND SHELTER DEMAND
The American Veterinary Medical Association (AMVA)provides a formula for estimating the
number of pets based on population and national pet ownership statistics. For example a
population of 45,000 would be represented in the following table.
Number of Pet Pet Population
Owning
Households
Dogs 6,696 11,376
Cats 5,832 12,834
Birds 702 ( 1,764
Horses 324 I 1,134
http://www.avma.orgireference/marketstats/ownership calculator.asp
It is also important to look at the burden of other shelters. PACC is 40 years old and exceeds
capacity by 250%. Oro Valley may have 45,000 residents; however, Marana, Catalina, and other
sections of unincorporated northern Pima County will be affected. Also the type of shelter and
the services provided will have an impact on identifying how many animals can be served.
ESTIMATING COST OF FACILITY
Facility cost can be estimated by set formulas and benchmarking. According to the ICMA in
2000:
(100 s.f.) X (# of dogs) + (50 s.f.) X (# of cats) = Total s.f.
(Total s.f.) X ($150) = Construction
(Construction) X (1.67 for Building related and other costs) = Total Project Cost
State of the art animal shelters, according to the International City/County Management
Association, "must have the disease prevention components of a hospital,the functional
capabilities of a police station(for those involved in animal control), and the user-friendly appeal
eal
of a library."
RECOMMENDATIONS
Choosing Type of Shelter
When choosing the type of shelter it is important to consider other services provided in the area,
the founder's philosophy, budget (assertive and creative fundraising can go a long way), and
human resources available. The following sections briefly layout this process as it relates to the
Town of Oro Valley's
Animal Control Will Remain Under the Authority of Pima County
Gaining authority over animal control in Oro Valley would be a significant undertaking, which
would require the rewriting of intergovernmental agreements and the Town's code as it relates to
animal control. It would also require the Town to hire animal control officers or contract out with
the proposed shelter to conduct field services.
3
Preliminary Animal Shelter Research
Open Admittance
It is important not to turn away animals that have no place to go. The purpose of the proposed
Oro Valley animal shelter is to provide animal owners with an alternative to the Pima Animal
Care Center. A no-kill or limited admittance shelter would simply redirect many pet owners to
PACC.
Number of Animals to be Sheltered
It is difficult to estimate the number of animals, which the proposed shelter should
accommodate. However, the Humane Society of Redmond, Oregon, which serves an area of
60,000 people, handles approximately 2,500 animals per year. A service area of 60,000 is an
appropriate comparison to the Town of Oro Valley.
Size of Facility
Animal Sheltering.Org provides example floor plans. One small shelter floor plan includes the
following:
Facility area: 3,500 square feet
Facility dimensions: 120 feet x 40 feet
Facility capacity: 20 dogs, 34 cats
If 50 animals are held for an average of 7 days, the shelter will house 2,600 animals per year.
The average number of days an animal is held depends on many variables such as why the
animals are there (strays, relinquished by their owners, etc.), holding period laws, the philosophy
of the shelter, and prevention and adoption outreach efforts. The ICMA recommends that strays
be held a minimum of five days.
Even though many variables are unknown, it is reasonable to conclude that a 3,500 ft shelter
would be large enough for the Town of Oro Valley. It is also reasonable to conclude that a
private, nonprofit animal shelter that does not have a housing contract, and which does not
conduct field services, will not handle more than 2,600 animals in one year. The Potter Animal
League of Rhode Island, which is open to all unwanted animals in Newport County, which has a
population of 82,800, handles approximately 2,000 animals a year.
Cost of Facility
Using the ICMA formula for estimating costs, a 3,500 square feet animal shelter would cost
$876,750. These numbers are outdated (2000). A September 16, 2008 Pima County Board of
Supervisors Memorandum stated that a new addition to the Animal League of Green Valley
Shelter that was completed last spring cost between $273 and $294 per square foot, and that the
cost estimate (September 2008) for the new PACC addition was $310 per square foot. The
PACC figure included work site and masonry construction costs. Using these figures from the
Animal League of Green Valley Shelter and PACC additions, the Oro Valley facility would cost
between $955,000 and $1,085,000. It is also important to keep in mind that an attractive, user-
friendly, green facility will positively impact residents' view of the Town of Oro Valley. These
elements will, however, raise costs.
4
Preliminary Animal Shelter Research
Operating Costs
The International City/County Management Association from Animal Control Management: A
Guide for Local Governments states, "An effective community animal care and control program
will cost at least $4 per person per year. In some jurisdictions, animal care and control budgets
are as high as $7 per person per year." In the absence of field services, an animal shelter's costs
maybe less. However, a nonprofit may spend more on education programs and other types of
services.
If the cost of the shelter is based on Oro Valley's population, which is approximately 45,000, the
shelter's operating costs should run at least $180,000 and at most $315,000. In Pima County,
with a population of about 1 million, the budget for PACC is $5.1 million, which is
approximately $5.10 spent on animal care and control per person per year. So Oro Valley's
"share" of PACC's budget should be about $229,500, which is right in line with the ICMA
numbers. If Oro Valley paid for its own animal care and control at this rate it would cost the
Town $229,500 per year to operate a shelter. The following table provides a breakdown of
operating costs considering different populations and per capita spending.
Ci.. 31 (PACC rate)
• tZ 1
Y;
ir
erv��ice
........ ..$5 A�0
M...e r
(#of peo a= rerc2pita; rM r capita capita
,. , ..... ,.. 6......per
capita $Mper capita
.. ....
45,000 $ 180,000 $ 225,000 $ 229,500 $ 270,000 $ 315,000
60,000 $ 240,000 $ 300,000 $ 306,000 $ 360,000 $ 420,000
100,000 $ 400,000 $ 500,000 $ 510,000 $ 600,000 $ 700,000
For an example of the costs associated with running an animal shelter PACC's Fiscal Year
2008/2009 Adopted Budget is provided below.
Pima County FY 2008/2009 Adopted Budget—Pima Animal Care Center
ftialitatitialiattlenntarag4S
r.r- ..`o- a.�)n .�r'�',w�. .v• .t..r:,:.` ?tip'" %:E•0.y ..v,;, ,. ..: ... ..J. ..\..b•'}r `k. T•. ,.>4 ':i.1'i.% cr<.?:r :,v}.;:`:bi\\�n....,.:�:,',i;'.:.. r.\...1..,,\,:ia) .c..,`a..<2•..Jd:,.. ..:.s .a,s., .. ..�\•,��, n.,.v-., r ,..,..:,� .. •\ ..tA :;•;;\::;)a2:i`ii,`;:Ca,. ..�. ..t�k 5 }a.•^)a .<n �,.,,,^'\:•-3Y-.,... t 0:..v., ..S .4...CZ. ``«n.a.' ..�• .•r-« r t,.T ••.�, .Z? .�S<.. >s. ,✓ .:. .<' a�. w .,fit•..,,:}. �\.i7:.+2i:F). v- ,?. .�\' }}n )•r.�:n r:^:\ rs. J �:�-'s'� nh':' j .a:;-:}s'•.;3, .:'t �r.n .,, v: \� `'.:k2:'r.. :Ar'Q'.- ..,WR, ,,�'• r'�,'. ':2�.:.}.•;.� .\w�}q,: :. i:. \o•.}..a.v.•, r;,n'''r:. ...,•..?..`: •:J....}. a : .�i ■ ..`y):v Si ,•<>,i'1,a .J},, �� "K�,...A :M� ,.. ,.......,Z....... ....�"Sc.� ,.:.,>�•.......3i:�. „ /O ��.- �t�//� ..R r(/�) r� M \,�.:r..>.�.. �.....<?.l.r......,. .. � , ,r.. >..,.., .x ♦.... +....n\,. ,n2%.:: .. Sf.4.....,.^:t � :i•::-}.A.,. Mw�. T�� �f� .:�. ���.` /��^�' ,T .?. .0......F.:;,.:•>a n•.'tt•).Jrv,r,rrrro?r,r}. � ).....,n,n..,..•y,a,a.,r.�`..r3.,..�.`,,.:fJ\..Z. :\�: ?'E�,.?�.. ., ),. � � .\�`...�. .. ,. .,..\.> ...�«...�, ... .. .......�. ,....\..S. ..,...x.,,)v...,n<.....r..r..a,.,�.....v. ..:S.....rv>...a's.:...nn,... .....................� .....i•��a n.a......,...,......... .,c.<,,...:c.c. ....'f'yd,'°p�?�,.,a•.;:t)��;,>2t;�:�...,.:C;
PERSONAL SERVICES $ 4,148,709 81%
SUPPLIES AND SERVICES $ 950,818 18%
CAPITAL OUTLAY $ 53,425 1%
TOTAL $ 5,152,952 100%
cost
...... _:..
�•f\�;..A.u�.sOav.-..::.°t`�.iw.,,..',�E�..�?r.\\.r2..f,?.•.>i..:<}..R v,w..,.nr•l\:�`,i+•�>YT\;:`\,•r.i:.-s,<<.Av.n?.V:...•atnC..,,}0.4,i`:.Dii,..r.•J...�.,\^:.�Y?;;.-5•�,-f».z-:•�a:$i.:�>'�•�\\.r;,/:s��.�:'..)`\,..'\.n'n<.,.\.�J..2.:<vi♦.4:t,4k�..:>.`.
v,�::y•�joL
),••A.�
•�w'`+•,2a
.`r
in?`
.2m
il:liwitwailtainitagalanik �oT 1Of TTtal>Pr0 •>:
,. ........,Jhn. ,..:.�•:•�n..<:.1M•)\.a•:t-\,\".,,.R:>JI.;:Q,,,,rtt,...,..�:;a:SC2N:-:.^.:'-.�>:::1
OPERATING REVENUE $ 3,944,363 77%
GRANT REVENUE $ 75,000 1%
NET OPERATING TRANSFERS
IN/(OUT) $ 1,040,555 20%
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES $ - 0%
FUND BALANCE
DECREASE/(INCREASE) $ 93,034 2%
TOTAL $ 5,152,952 100%
5
Preliminary Animal Shelter Research
T: J•� S:.a:is
.... ,v.. .. +.,. , ....,.n':.v:..,•., :; ':ice:. ":4:•::f: <:':
LICENSCES & PERMITS 1,319,400 33% 26%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1,779,413 45% 35%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES 578,250 15% 11%
FINES& FORFEITS 206,800 5% 4%
MISCELLANEOUS 60,500 2% 1%
OPERATING REVENUE SUB-
TOTAL 3,944,363 100% 77%
According to the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association, 28 percent of owned dogs
and 16 percent of owned cats are not spayed or neutered. Using these percentages and the
numbers from the AMVA's pet-ownership calculator, for a population of 45,000 there are 8,191
altered dogs and 3,185 unaltered dogs. PACC charges an $11 license fee for altered dogs and a
$45 license fee for unaltered dogs. If Oro Valley were to charge the same rate it could generate
$233,436 in license fees, which comes out to $5.18 per capita. For information on PACC's fees
and services see attachment 2. This figure is for licensing fees alone, and does not include other
types of fees.
NEXT STEPS
Feasibility Study
If the decision is made to move forward, it will be necessary to hire a firm with extensive
experience building animal shelters to conduct a feasibility study. This will provide an accurate
assessment of the situation in light of the Town's goals and resources. Animal Shelter.Org
provides a list of ten planners/architects, which could provide such services, with Shelter
Planners of America being the most visible. Upon completion of the feasibility study, the council
may decide to select an architect and begin the construction process.
Managing the Shelter
If the decision is made to construct an animal shelter it will be necessary to establish a plan for
selecting a nonprofit to manage the shelter. Research will need to be conducted in order to find
out whether such an organization currently exists or whether one will need to be established in
order to take advantage of this previously unavailable opportunity.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Animal Shelter Example - Redmond, Oregon
2. Pima Animal Care Center - Fees and Services
3. Pima Animal Care -Revenues
4. Pima Animal Care Activity Report for Oro Valley
5. Conceptual Floor Plan Example
6. Intergovernmental Agreement with Pima County for the Provision of Animal Control
Services
6
Attachment 1
Animal Shelter Example — Redmond, Oregon
LOCATION: Redmond, Oregon
ANNUAL BUDGET: Estimated at $325,000 for new facility
ANIMALS HANDLED EACH YEAR: 2,500
COMMUNITY SIZE: 60,000 (service area)
POPULATION OF REDMOND: 23,769 (2007)
YEAR ORIGINAL SHELTER BUILT: 1986
YEAR NEW SHELTER BUILT: 2004
PROJECT COST: $1,123,000
TYPE OF SHELTER: Private, nonprofit shelter with housing contract for city and county
DESCRIPTION:
• Property
o Five acre parcel of land deeded by City of Redmond
• Centralized drain system
o One central pipe
o Separate drain for each kennel with 6"pipes
o Center staff aisles have flush drain (to control odors)
• Power wash system
o Pre-measured, pre-mixed chemicals (reduces human error)
o overhead reel system
• Indoor/outdoor kennels (decided against outdoor runs for security reasons)
o Outside exercise areas
o Stationary nonfunctional windows
o Two-sided runs (dogs don't have to look at each other)
o Guillotine gates make cleaning efficient
o Rear section available from center staff work area
o Outside exercise areas
• Puppy pens
o 5 elevated puppy pens 4' x 4' (separate storage components for shredded paper
and other needs)
o Plexiglas front to avoid cross-contamination from handling
• Cats
o 3 colony rooms near main door of shelter
o Vaulted ceilings and sky lights
o Additional cat caging
o Locked kitten nursery
• People flow and traffic
o euthanasia room and crematorium enclosed in back (out of sight)
• Separation of shelter functions
o Return-to-owner and adopted animals exit through front areas
o Stray and quarantine animals enter through the back
• Flooring
o Hallways: acid treated concrete with clear sealer
• low cost
• color
• variance
• Re-seal as needed
o Kennels: concrete tinted and colored with clear sealer
■ More expensive
■ Regular re-sealing
• More mottled coloring
• Lobby area
o Resource library
o Gift shop
o Memorial thank you wall of personalized bricks
o Quiet room (grieving)
• Room for growth
o 1,438 s.f. empty room versatile enough to later fill various needs
• Process
o Design-build (seemed to underestimate eventual costs)
o Suggest design-bid-build
Attachment 2
Pima Animal Care Center
Fees and Services
DOG LICENSING FEES ADOPTIONS
Altered Dog $12.00 Kitten $95.00
Unaltered Dog $50.00 Kitten - Purchased by $80.00
Senior Citizen
Altered Dog - Owned $8.00 Cat - Adult $80.00
by Senior Citizen
Unaltered Dog - $14.00 Cat - Purchased by Senior $68.00
Owned by Senior Citizen
Altered Dog - Owned $7.00 Puppy $95.00
by Disabled Person
Unaltered Dog - $14.00 Puppy - Purchased by $80.75
Owned by Disabled Senior Citizen
Altered Dog - Low $6.00 Dog - Adult $80.00
Income (One Time)
Unaltered Dog - Low $22.00 Dog - Purchased by Senior $68.00
Income (One Time) Citizen
Dangerous or Vicious $80.00 Dog - Less Adoptable $40.00
Dogs
Late Fee (Less than 1 $7.00 Dog - Less Adoptable $34.00
Year) Purchased by Senior
Late Fee (1 to 2 $18.00
Years)
Late Fee (2 or More $30.00
Years)
TAGS
Cat Identification Tag $10.00
Duplicate Tag $7.00
Microchip $10.00
Transfer of Ownership $7.00
Attachment 2
Pima Animal Care Center
Fees and Services
SHELTER FEES MEDICAL SERVICES
Rabies Vaccination $11.00 (available after adoption or
retrieval of a cat or dog)
Euthanasia $15.00 3DX Test - tick $25.00
fever/lyme/heartworm
Animal Pick Up at $70.00 Giardia Test - intestinal $20.00
residence parasite
Each additional animal $5.00 Parvo Test - virus often $25.00
picked up intestinal
Board Fee- Licensed, $11.00 FLV/FIV Test - feline $25.00
Altered (Per Day) leukemia
Board Fee- Licensed, $31.00 Fecal Test - intestinal $20.00
Unaltered (Per Day) parasites
Board Fee- $35.00 Brief Blood Test $36.00
Unlicensed, Altered
Board Fee- $55.00 Complete Blood Test $48.00
Unlicensed, Unaltered
Board Fee- Other $11.00 Dental $50.00
Animals (Per Day)
1st Impoundment $55.00 Skin Scrape - mange or $10.00
(Altered) ringworm
2nd Impoundment $110.00 Umbilical Hernia Repair $25.00
(Altered)
Subsequent $165.00 Inguinal Hernia Repair - $100.00
Impoundment hernia in groin area
1st Impoundment $110.00 Cherry Eye Repair $135.00
(Unaltered)
Subsequent $165.00 Eye Removal $150.00
impoundment
Kennel Permit (County $300.00 Leukemia Vaccine $10.00
Only)
Tick/Flea Protection $10.00
Ear Mite Treatment $15.00
O co co
J c) - O O p 0 0 O O O
0 0 O
p 0 0 0
Goo O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O co
�a.. C3) O O O rte,. O O O p cc M cc 0 in O p p 0) (0 0
Nr-
b M (30,) (09 N 2 O o0 E� N O �t co CD- 0 N ,r Eft to „-- co O
E- - Ef3 Eft r- ,_
O �- r-- ,t' �- �} CN N CO r--
v-- ,- Ef3 co-
t() ea Ef-3 Eft Ef3 69 Ef3 Ea Eft Ef3 Ef3 Ef3 Eft Co
E a EA- Eft
O
CO CO
U O O CD
p O O O O p 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 PC
0
p O O 0 M O O O CD O aO C0 ap r-,
0 p 0 Otn C0 p (O-
w
M CD Ef3 ( € Eft in Ef3 Cc)EA} N Co (D O.Ea • r`- p c�
♦♦ EA- �-- Ef3 Ea Ea �} Ef3 6H — —Eate. Eft ca Eft(N N
C Ef3
as m _I O 80c,
Mt E = g O 00 0 0 0 Do p 0 p M
a) •— tL `V' O O O O („ 00 ,...„ 0 O O O
W aj 0 O O ~ O Ln Eft O C0 c3 4 0 O CO 4
V Q Z O T- Ef3 co M CO CO r- N I� CO (N Ea Q) N.
cts
W O �-- try Ef} Ef3 Eft Ea H4 Ef? O
Eft Ef> Ea C.
al .E if!
a
C)
C
C)
>
a)
Ce
0
0
N
CO
0
0
N
0
> W
O
Q W (I) Z
Q
W
Z W
c.6D O w
c w CC o H U w
O z W < Z CoQ J D
0 W Z I--- W 0 0 W CL U Q w O
To UO vw ~ a" Cn Q U : Z
�E -' :=1 z O a_ O co oW o W Co' (n Z Q
Q (D < Wa. Q c: D Cn w � � _ CnW D � _._,
>. WUWwD � ZYZZQl1' �-- �-- F- ZJ � OWU
= Z � WLC] I- zQUQ � E5a. CrCt � < zZ � Co
o C/) � u- o000Ua- UQ = ZZDQzLL- Qw2
0 ODQF- D1Lu' E-- < w < — < OCLCC0 — a-< w < J
CU z � --J Q U) W a- 2 z 2 U = (rW W >_ U W w 0 H w Q
I- Qa. W WO — U1- UF- F- 1-- ICnCnI F-.
.- Ow2WwOZ � Z < D — WW _ UQI- QE- 0
Q zU = __ LI- wQ < O < > w2 » UQ _._, O2a_ O E—
e
o (N
�' c0 4 cO N- CSD O O
C N CO c0 CD (N (N CD
E
o CD u') O O O
• N
Q _O CO- c0 cc cc
W 69 69- C) 69 69 00
64
co
C pp N CC/ In
N cc Q?
C O
a) -
_U O
J .--
6�9
0 t`
(n oN r-
cCD
o Q) �O N
LO
•E C p ct
C a)
Q Y •-
6o a)
CO C
M C) o
a)
,-- N CO CN
N 0 C U a�
cry N _ a) C
(73 U r- M c6 > N CD
U O H X co C
c 69 0 0 0 0
W
>- >- >- <
76 >, CO 0 >,
C a) 2 co _a
03 H U U cts U
o cts 0 0
L. C `
�- .6O c C � O
W H. cr, U <
J
_J co
Q U
>
Cr
0 '
H O
Z w co
Uz 00 1 N t--
_ H co d- co cO CD
ti Q) LL �D .`D N. 7t N
0 O 00 �' N `D N C) H .CO
H F-- N CO in in C- to N .
Z = CL' 0 LC C) ON N CO CO C) CO CD
}— W U t- c0 CD O -bg N . r.--+
°'-
O _J c
Li-
U 0 c m CO C C
Z C: Cn CO c �- c ca Q
Q0 LT
0 ` N E cio a) 2 ~
W F- c J 0 73 z. 1-
E ( E c w a
>- -c w (./)
HQ
>
H
U
Q
O O ,- O O O O O O O O O
CI) o '4 O L.C) o o Ln o 0 o r,- CO
�-- co O c) coC\J CV - Ln N- c:6O CO
0 In LO
> r--- O C`7 O O N Q) r- (N r-
CY 6 69 69 69 ER ER � 6i3 co- c0
6q c'D
6+9
Q> CO N H r-- U) co O Q) coo .- cr-
C CO V to r-- CD M .-- CV 11")
CO N (N (N .,- r- (N N N c'0 (N ,q- co
C (N
a)
_U
J
CO `- 0 c7' rt N o co rt r-- -,:r- O — ct-
N
CZ
_E
C
Q
(-NJ O
(N Lf) 00 N c0 LC '400
CO
N `- C)
ct7
0
in inc
CD L LC) LC) O� o CO CD CD (IDcd_
0 0 0 0 0
CD 0 0 0 0 �.
5 d U > U C >. 0
-) C cn O 0 a) C a) c1 a (1 C
Z 0 --) LI_ < 2 --
.:
conceptual...
..,.. , .., .
f.aoiliy4.,,'::":44..iiiiiik: :...,::
...„,..
";
il.';'ke
s 1 g ,. yam♦ f�Sy `y
••::
644
,:40::::'10
i� R � E<P
:•
FUTURE
CANNE
JOr• ; : e. ,••w samagarg 1 ;
SERVICE
Do:PANES/MI 11
.
,,4,$,,,
rwe
,,,,,,,,..-,4t15..t.t,,,,,,,,_
iik /..
I/
i , rt ,. ♦ a ,OUARANTNE
♦ iiiiiiii, Te = G <.� Socity qy.,:i.,,,,,,i
j I ISOLATION
Atla
.:
, CAME
"ME 1111111111\
Comp
',.,:
a anionS4lt8ocie6gtyISSUe
.org8United Stat; * ::
.,....::....:.
\ AsimS8DeptD(AA/ \
,.,.,'.•:41:::...,.'-j.•:
, .:,.....• .,
.. -.. . •
_ _ •
, c •w:TJRa
:„,„-..:...;,...•, • .'
I Emu, ,
....:,...,„,,,...,
> )
.,
, A m1).,::.,,i.:,...„:.:,i,.0..:...:..:.... :'..:.i...... .:
l 1 ( M• 2 4. i ,
..,
WO7. 4 `,T
„,.::;:.:.:
•Iki
•
,ilYcx'�CaxV. 1 ,
• - -..:,
1 ♦ ]ggl lI t
!,l:Irli .)
., ,1.Ail
♦♦Ill \
♦ :�\0� 4��rx -rsti r.l+y z>
n �TvY�'x r,"`..f"^.7 a Tn Trx,{r Y\e,y�t•+le�>r act>\ t ,��,,�
AI , 1 ` sk.� .ttir.x 4y�aF Rpt, t x..t_+y
. �� a cr • ,rot.c"'�y ;1 fat
•
�� -- ii o tw g0Y,',,,het\-1:a t
�/ I �y� ,TQ?k:,;;\y t,tx�� . t�#”' �cT�L•4 °n S�,r�. ?N,
: .
iiiii
.,, S 3t .T /.".y•i>`C \c xa 'y' nh''>. 4 -
♦•tt'xl.'t. s
7
=► �j,; \.,
Facity capacity''
44
`' :� .,:: :-:.:„.:.::::.::‘:
20 Canine_ _B '
li5 III
�.`"ill' . 34 Feines �4 F
�� tort •!
�. ,k�f S any ,,fiy,,.vr,�'-r4 `L >
,,,yr�> '7,".i gi Vo'£y,i:.,.Ys sub t,r:?S..[q�,c,is y}..Etc�.'.M h�{; \h f�'0.W,�,+�c 9 ?N�ii -- ' 1;11iii
tY.a\.4 1a. < v tf«.�n.", Vic..
T
�� ♦ '~ ♦
II.e. .2.is�Y JKT,��.l��`cTS. �,0`ti`r3 '••.
i �1 \• ui`'R .tY�>'t•ias�,�<\ )� yr•"��"' yy.a e !t"�
11 '� 1'ti ,{ >^r'�.c v.Y>a +�L'r 5.Y`'"" •t,.Y".ytyr >,
II i i x�<,f4 "'�r R A.%�3 >rQ. r Y• �
�g�'NaCx»`�.•t?) �w,2y���q,r�',h`2ti'< r\.y o�<j<\;�``�` a\ �s
'�y�x J l�'k'.c.f ,ids Y nvo.�e Cc,.c 2<0 5,r .,.::
.„
/ u \ �f w ,, iso � ;,y¢y"``t �. '- s vet,a3 r1\
� I •! , Y "1�� i 2,04,lA' 4'44 a 4"ti,.fix. 1^Y Q'i.a 3h i c`.
----- -- ititi.,.
Y Y $';a.I'Ai .` t 44,;:.c!
° ._•.�. R M r'-
FEATURE
hi `ti I ..� ls >°' # '." 4 1`A9Pa y?+SC�s 3A At`tit : r\x...
\��""�/� �.�!°n^��42,'<'Yt> - ;�}�,vst.. �r u.>>aY rr>>.c.♦> ���rj�� �'.
:Y t o 33 j`�xY,��,1*�`c�p`Tt�C. • '°\, t<3 VILIx2 a
r,r17+y nf" Y,��:f>c f''� m fix,��a'RR,,G, kc. �y< >
.Y a j c%0 T-y
II
•..� Y t }tn�f�x�._Y "r,y�L�1R•'>�'y�C 2
,nC 4 M �*i % �� M �
mi::::,-,:.,-.7..,_p_tiyAri,:3: ::,,i,,:„';:.;.:.:.
toe,:::::,::;:•:„,:::„
;1.4.44-A-4:
.50:::::: :..-.!.,..•::.:
--,-...::::,.:::,..,*:,7.,::,,,,,.:,,,:i.:,.,..::...,..;:y.::,:,..--,.:y,,,:::...:::•.,-,:.:...:..-i-i...,.:,:.,.-. ..
> ♦< ;,,:.,:L.,.: ,:...
.. . ,.,
ADRECEPT
Date:
��orr FUTURE
July 23,.2004
..=
,;4 7,,.i it;":4:,/
"' n'�+� THE HUMANE CIETY
Of THt'UNkTEO:STPA:,
ES
l'"
Conceptual Floor Plank BACON GROU
� A R C H I T E C R E
0 4' 8' '6' 32' 2641 SUNSET POINT,,....
ROAD
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33759
P: 727.725.0111 - F: 727.725.0111
pRl►Wt�q
SCALE tne".rt—O' WWW.B G A R C H I T E C T S.C O M
AAC002095 - E 80006092
No. o o - D- /9,6:(1,:./.2.21
AMENDN1 : o. Ol
i
This num et toi.s, a 0t,t,11 on all
Invoices, GI) "w,u' ►«t, ; and
documents aN 'lilt+'ic, to 7P}is
Catlti. c . v '
AMENDMENT NO. I TO TIRE
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; 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 II1.16--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.
01
�.,
PIMA COUNTY TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, a Municipal
Corporation
ig.7
ll
. .......•..de— ...4 •- gG052008 / Goo, z+..
R'chard Elias, Chal.`man Date Mayor Date N
Pima County Supervisors
Board of Su '~�
+r.?
ATTEST: ATTEST:
7:, i /
\ra
AUG 0 5 2008et„,,,,,,64: /\/r -&--Dc
„.„. 14 Afro., Ai „
....A.
-,:,
Clerk of the Board Date To'• n Clerk Date
xxr
.ra:
.wx
a'
a
r,
,C
Town of Oro Valley PACC No I.doc I
`:.Kis
I
R E V Li aa rb) �,s t.
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT
DENNIS W.DOUGLAS,Director
Pima County Health Dept
SP
Department Head 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
g �
under the laws of the State of Arizona
......_..:'_. -- Z' 0,
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
/1:70 ( 5/2,3 Or
D epuaunty Attorney, Pima County Date
:.,s
•,i
�tl
.11'y
{yrA rrt�!)
Town of Oro Valley PACC No l.doc 2
RESOLUTION NO. (R)06-65
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF 0110 VALLEY,
ARIZONA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
AM) PIMA COUNTY, A POLn'I.CAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA,
I'HILOUGH 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 Valley desires 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:
I. 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,ARIZ ON A
Paul H.Loomis,Mayor
ATTEST: - APP'O VED AS TO Fop :
-6K
14/ .4.'4041 "r404/. A
Ka I .-Cuvelier,Towm,Clerk Melinda Garrah. awn Attorney
Date: g -C;16' Date: 4 O,6
RESOLUTION No..2006.258
RESOLUTION OF THE PIMA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVING
AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL •
AGREEMENT BETWEEN PTI IA 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 Valleyfor 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.
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
Resolution.
ctr-j-
OCT 1 100r
•
i
ADOPTED,AND APPROVED by the Pima County Board of
PASSED, A ,
Supervisors, this 3rd da of QctQber , 2006. .
Sup Y
PIMA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
,40,,i4e tp
Richard Elias, hairman
A.....-2.4 i\i - . W 1..2--4 . .
ATTEST .
/ 1 •
By: .4` r/`'�'♦/ ./.�?,_ �,
• Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
APPROVED AS TO FORM .
A$ I_
Dep i ty County Attorney .
- r C ON TR A C
•
Flo.
21.LgoLo..... 6.�• o0
AMENDMENT O.
This numoer must auaeaf on all
invoices, corresoonaence and
documents oertain►np 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
TOWN for animal control purposes and;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of A.R.S. § 11-951 et. seq., the TOWN and
COUNTY are expressly authorized to enter into an intergovernmental agreement to provide such
services.
1
•
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:
1. 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 shall prosecute 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
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 the
funds for its purposes.
2
•
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. § 11-1101 et. seq. 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,
officials, agents, employees, or volunteers.
13. The cost of services charged to TOWN by COUNTY under this Agreement shall
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
(a) Pima County Health Care System;
(b) Pima County Health Department;
(c) Pima County Facilities Management Department;
(d) Pima County Automotive Services Department;
(e) Pima County Transportation &Flood Control Department;
(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 each year
during the term of this Agreement beginning with the Fiscal Year from July 1, 2006 through
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.
IV. APPLICABLE LAW:
17. This Agreement and al] 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
4
Parties hereto shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local statutes, ordinances,
regulations,rules, standards and executive orders.
V.TEMNATION:
18. The Agreement may be terminated by either Party, with or without cause, upon sixty
(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:
21. This Agreement is subject to the provisions of A.R.S. § 38-511.
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 does 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. NON-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:
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.
6
•
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,we have hereunto set our hands this 3rd October day of 2006.
PIMA COUNTY TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, a Municipal
Corporation,
"PO" 4
By: ,i( _ , , By: ....., :20". (ii4----------,
is are las,C an Mayor
Board of Supervisors
ATTEST ATTEST
/
By: ,,; .
gii/._At,r /. ., .14, By:
C erk of the Board Tow Clerk
(111-144.6-e—%
By: 411, 40F
Dennis W. Douglas, Director
Pinna 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.
BY:4 I1
•. - Lrt 4
D-puty County Attorney
/ / / / /
By.
; •wn Attorney
7
o1S5 -06
