Plan unveiled for Palo Alto Animal Services; cutbacks, increased revenues billed as answer to budget

The budgetary woes of the Palo Alto Animal Services division could largely be fixed by increasing spay and neuter revenues, but layoffs will still have to part of the mix, according to a plan unveiled Wednesday.

As part of the fiscal year 2013 budget passed in June, the city council ordered a $449,105 reduction in the net cost of animal services. Since then, city staff has met periodically with shelter supporters to develop a plan that achieves that goal.

Council members are scheduled to review a combination of proposed fee hikes and layoffs on Monday.

“This plan represents the best option to maintain acceptable levels of service for the community and our partner cities while significantly reducing animal services’ cost to the general fund in (fiscal year) 2013,” senior performance auditor Ian Haggerman wrote in a report.

The division is in dire financial straits because of Mountain View’s decision to leave its 19-year partnership with Palo Alto, which continues to provide animal services to Los Altos and Los Altos Hills.

The plan hinges on a 25 percent annual increase in the number of animals that are spayed and neutered at the division’s shelter on East Bayshore Road. Associated fees would also be raised by 22 percent for residents of Palo Alto, Los Altos and Los Altos Hills, and 50 percent for all others.

Altogether, the division could pull in $143,793 annually by expanding the number of animals it sterilizes and charging more for the procedure, according to Haggerman’s report. Another $41,556 could be raised by hiking fees for dog licenses, vaccinations and adoptions.

The plan also calls for eliminating two full-time-equivalent positions — an animal control officer and an animal services supervisor — by the end of the year, and cutting a part-time volunteer coordinator and hourly veterinarian on July 1, 2013, for a total annual savings of $284,426.

Reaction to the fee component of the plan has been mixed among shelter supporters, said Luke Stangel, who helped coordinate an effort earlier this year to derail a controversial proposal to outsource the division and then co-founded the Friends of the Palo Alto Animal Shelter to ensure its long-term survival.

“My personal sense is the fee increases are entirely appropriate,” Stangel told The Daily News. “For decades, Palo Alto Animal Services has been the cheapest place in town to get your cat or dog spayed or neutered and vaccinated. These fee increases bring Palo Alto closer to the market rate, which I think is very smart.”

Stangel acknowledged that higher prices might be a deal breaker for some low-income users, but said additional vouchers might provide an answer. The Friends group is exploring whether to join the California Department of Agriculture, Santa Clara County and Palo Alto Humane Society in providing vouchers.

As for layoffs, there is unity on that front, Stangel said.

“FoPAAS has always been against staff reductions and we continue to be against staff reductions,” he said.

Stangel said the Friends group is still working to come up with a way to preserve the positions and pointed to donations, including $35,000 from an anonymous party to retain the volunteer coordinator through the end of the current fiscal year, as a sign that the community values the staff.

Division Superintendent Sandi Stadler said layoffs, if approved, would ultimately result in a level of service that is lower than what some in the community have come to expect. There would be fewer employees to absorb a workload that will continue to be significant despite Mountain View’s departure.

“I don’t want staff burnout,” Stadler told The Daily News. “We’re going to have to take it slowly and adjust.”

Stadler said losing even one employee would be hard on the tight-knit staff of 13. Still, she added, the division is in a much better position than it was just a few short months ago.

“It was good that we were able to do a combination of both, because if we had to do one or the other, we would have failed,” she said about the proposed fee hikes and staffing cuts. “We’re still here and that’s fantastic.”

The post Plan unveiled for Palo Alto Animal Services; cutbacks, increased revenues billed as answer to budget appeared first on Friends of the Palo Alto Animal Shelter.

A group hoping to save Palo Alto’s animal shelter swayed only one member of the Mountain View City Council Tuesday, May 8, in an effort to keep Mountain View from switching to a Santa Clara-based animal services provider.

The council voted 6-1 to enter into a joint powers board agreement with Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority (SVACA) on Thomas Road in Santa Clara, with Council member Laura Macias opposed. The move will save the city $40,000 a year, police Capt. Max Bosel said.

Macias cited concerns raised by the Palo Alto group “Save Our Shelter” over a $150 fee for surrendering animals at SVACA (Palo Alto takes them for free) and concerns over the limited availability of spaying and neutering services at the SVACA shelter, though the service is offered there at a lower average cost.

“The surrender fee and spay and neuter availability are coming up as pretty serious issues,” Macias said. “If you don’t have $150 you aren’t going to bring your pet in. People are going though really trying times in their lives and that’s not when they have $150 around.”

The move means Palo Alto will lose $450,000 a year to run its shelter on Bayshore Road, spurring Palo Alto to examine outsourcing animal services and possibly building an auto dealership on the site. Up to 13 employees could be out of work.

The move was supposed to save Mountain View more than $150,000 a year after five years, according to a staff report. But city staff members weren’t making that claim Tuesday.

“It turns out its going to be pretty close to (a) wash,” said council member Jac Siegel about the city saving money with SVACA.

Siegel called it a “tough decision.”

“I found the most caring people at both facilities I’ve ever seen in my life,” he said.

Council members cited having an influence over how SVACA is run as a major selling point, along with fewer animal control duties put upon local police and the city attorney’s office, which would no longer waste time “chasing strays” and holding vicious dog hearings.

But it turned out the influence in SVACA joint powers board may be less than hoped. As a member of the multi-city board, Mountain View has only two votes, while Santa Clara has five, Campbell has two and Monte Sereno has one vote. Bosel said there was “spirited discussion” about having a number of votes more proportionate to the population of the cities on the board, but no luck. Nevertheless, its an upgrade to being completely at Palo Alto’s whim with the PAAS contract, Council member Margaret Abe-Koga said.

Council members weighed numerous pros and cons of the two shelters and found similar euthanasia rates over recent years. Members praised Santa Clara’s relatively new facilities, while Palo Alto’s is in need of a rebuild. Fees are higher at SVACA for adopting a dog, for example, which costs $150 at SVACA versus $100 at the Palo Alto shelter. And a trip to SVACA may take a few minutes longer than to Palo Alto, according to Google maps.

To keep Mountain View, city staff members reported in November that Palo Alto Animal Services (PAAS) offered to extend its shelter hours from 30 to 43 hours a week, 7.5 hours more than SVACA’s posted shelter hours. Recently proposed budget cuts to PAAS could also save Mountain View an untold amount. PAAS also offered to waive any costs for renovating its aging shelter facility, Mountain View’s share of which was an estimated $2 million.

Mountain View’s contract with PAAS ends Jan. 1, 2013. PAAS has not granted an early termination of the contract requested by Mountain View for July.

The post Mountain view officially switches animal services appeared first on Friends of the Palo Alto Animal Shelter.

Mountain View officially pulled the plug Tuesday on its long-running partnership with Palo Alto for animal services, approving a new agreement with a Santa Clara-based joint powers authority.

The city council voted 6-1 to contract with the Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority, or SVACA.

Council members said the decision was motivated by a desire to expand services, cut costs and have a greater say in financial decisions. As a member of the joint powers authority, Mountain View will get to vote, for example, on changes to fees, something it couldn’t do under its agreement with Palo Alto.

“I think we’re getting a good service. I think we’re getting some … political input to at least have some control over those costs and to at least have some say about things,” said Council Member Tom Means.

Mountain View expects to pay upward of $300,000 to join SVACA. The expenditure will cover the purchase of a vehicle to serve the city and an expansion of the joint powers authority’s shelter. Overall, the city expects the agreement to slash annual operating costs by about 10 percent, or $40,000.

SVACA is set to take over animal services in early November, according to the contract approved Tuesday.

Council Member Laura Macias cast the dissenting vote largely because of concerns about the $150 fee SVACA charges for animal surrenders. She said it would likely lead more residents who are down on their luck to abandon their pets.

“People are going through trying times in their lives and that’s not when they have an extra $150 lying around,” Macias said.

By way of comparison, the Humane Society of Silicon Valley charges a $160 fee and the Peninsula Humane Society charges $20. Palo Alto charges nothing to residents from its partner cities and San Jose does not accept surrenders.

SVACA Executive Director Dan Soszynski explained that the fee was set at $150 to reduce the number of animals being surrendered.

Macias’ concerns were echoed by nine public speakers who also urged the city council to stick with Palo Alto because of its popular low-cost spay and neuter clinic and close proximity to Mountain View.

“I know it’s expensive, but sometimes it’s worth spending the money,” said Mountain View resident Gloria Jackson.

Council members acknowledged that the decision wasn’t an easy one, but said residents ultimately stood to benefit from the switch.
“We didn’t take this lightly. I hear what you’re all saying. Try to be open about it,” said Council Member Jac Siegel. “Palo Alto has a wonderful facility … but I found the same thing at SVACA.”

The new agreement is also expected to take pressure off the city attorney’s office and police department, both of which are currently required to handle certain animal-related issues. SVACA will pick up those duties.

Mountain View’s decision to switch contractors is expected to create a $470,000 hole in the $1.7 million annual budget of the Palo Alto Animal Services division. As a result, Palo Alto City Manager James Keene has recommended outsourcing animal services, possibly to SVACA.
Means said he wasn’t worried about any ramifications to Palo Alto.

“I’m not concerned about them. I’m concerned about our city. This is the one we represent,” he said. “I think we’re making a good decision tonight. I think we’re getting good services.”

Email Jason Green at Mountain View approves switch in animal services providers, ends partnership with Palo Alto appeared first on Friends of the Palo Alto Animal Shelter.

The amount of cash Palo Altans are pouring into City coffers is steadily increasing, yet still not keeping pace with the skyrocketing costs of employee pensions and health care, according to a forecast presented to City Council Monday.

If measures are not put into place to reverse that trend, the City is in danger of being a combined $83.4 million in the hole by 2022, according to the “General Fund Long Range Financial Forecast,” produced by the Administrative Services department.

“The City’s revenue projections are more positive than they have been in a few years,” according to the report. “However, benefit costs continue to outpace the rate of revenue growth.”

The forecast is not designed to be a hard-fast prediction, per se, because it is based on a number of assumptions that may prove to be inaccurate on some level. Nonetheless, it offers a “snapshot” of the troubles ahead for the city if drastic changes aren’t made to its “structural deficit,” according to the report.

The City Council managed to squeak through a balanced budget in 2012 by winning tough concessions from police and fire unions last year, among other cutbacks.

To achieve similar cuts moving forward, however, Council may have to outsource services, raise taxes and fees, make permanent some position freezes, enter into public/private partnerships, and bring union compensation down to a level equal to other city employees, among other measures.

The City of Palo Alto is on track to pull in more than $150 million in revenues this year, increasing to nearly $200 million in 2012, according to the forecast. But costs this year, which will hit nearly $154 million, are forecast to rise to $213 million in that same amount of time. By then, the reserve fund that was tapped to balance this year’s budget will be gone.

Making matters worse, the staff report does not include any additional spending on “catch-up” infrastructure projects—that is, the $41.5 million worth of backlogged projects identified by the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission—but rather only “keep-up” projects that represent the bare minimum required to keep the City intact, at a cost of $2.2 million per year.

“This Forecast shows that, without further action, the City can expect more deficits in the coming years,” according to the report. “However, the City has received a vote of confidence in the form of a General Obligation Bond Triple?A credit rating from Standard and Poor’s. Staff trusts that the community, Council and staff will act, as they have in the past, to balance the budget and to maintain the assets that make Palo Alto a renowned place to live.”

The post $83 million deficit projected for Palo Alto appeared first on Friends of the Palo Alto Animal Shelter.

Palo Alto residents would lose many of the animal services they currently enjoy, including the ability to voluntarily surrender pets, if the city were to scrap its longstanding operation and outsource it to another city, according to a new city report.

The city is considering outsourcing its animal services in response to Mountain View’s decision last year to opt out of its partnership in the Palo Alto facility. The Animal Services Center on East Bayshore Road has been providing services to Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos and Los Altos Hills since 1993. Mountain View’s decision to switch from Palo Alto to the Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority (SVACA) in Santa Clara means Palo Alto will no longer receive about $470,000 in annual fees from Mountain View.

Palo Alto City Manager James Keene included the decision to outsource animal services in his proposed budget for fiscal year 2013. Eliminating the local operation, along with its 13 full-time positions, would save the city about $500,000 a year, he estimated.

But the decision has also attracted intense opposition from local animal lovers and volunteers, many of whom have joined a group called “Save our Shelter” to oppose the proposal to close the aged but popular Animal Services Center. The City Council’s Policy and Services Committee is scheduled to discuss the facility’s future at its meeting Thursday night.

In a new report, Police Chief Dennis Burns presents a potential middle ground by outlining three options that would scale back but not eliminate the animal-services operation. Under one scenario, the city would eliminate two full-time positions, an animal-services supervisor and an animal-control officer, and the half-time volunteer-coordinator position, saving the city about $270,826 total. Burns warned that under this scenario, “there would be no back up officer in cases of simultaneous calls for service, calls for service with multiple animals, nor field coverage in times of illness, vacation or family leave.” It would also mean less disaster-preparedness training and a reduction in shelter tours.

The second option would significantly reduce the city’s level of field services, eliminating both animal-control-officer positions and switching from a full-time veterinarian to one operating on a contract. The city would scrap its spay/neuter clinic, its volunteer program and its store, saving about $194,034, according to the report. The third option would scrap all of its veterinary-care services, outsourcing it to local animal hospitals. It would no longer offer spay/neuter or euthanasia services and would lose out on the fees associated with these services. The third option would cost the city about $17,583 annually.

Though the lattermost option would significantly reduce the cost, it would come with major repercussions for local animals. Burns points out that under the current system, the city’s veterinarian handles medical issues that are not chronic in nature, including amputation, hernia repair and eye enucleation. With a positive outcome, such services could make an animal adoptable, Burns wrote.

“Treatments such as those listed are done in the regular course of work by the veterinary staff and adoption or rescue is the likely outcome,” Burns wrote. “If these procedures were to be contracted out to regular veterinary practices the costs associated with these services may make them unobtainable and the animal would be euthanized.”

The new report also lists several agencies that could provide animal services to Palo Alto should the city decide to outsource them, including SVACA, San Jose, the Humane Society of Silicon Valley in Milpitas and the Peninsula Humane Society in San Mateo. Service levels would change depending on provider. The Peninsula Humane Society, for example, would not provide animal-control field services, Burns wrote. San Jose, for example, offers many of the same services that Palo Alto offers but does not accept voluntarily surrendered animals. Other agencies do, but they charge a fee.

“Many shelters will not accept surrendered animals or they may charge a fee, resulting in the owner abandoning the animal,” Burns wrote. “PAAS is one of only a few shelters in the area that accepts surrendered animals at no charge to the owner.”

The new report was met with instant skepticism by local animal activists, including the “Save our Shelter” group and the Palo Alto Humane Society. The groups blasted the proposal to outsource animal services and to end the existing policy of allowing voluntary surrenders of stray and unwanted animals. The Humane Society called outsourcing animal services “a radical change in the principle that has guided the community for 60 years, namely, that local animal control services make for ‘safe streets, parks and schools’ for people and their pets.

“In addition, outsourcing animal services breaches the moral obligation that the City has to animals entrusted to its care,” the organization stated.

“Save Our Shelter” also wrote in a statement that it “wholeheartedly oppose(s) the wholesale outsourcing of animal services to competing animal shelters.”

“Palo Alto Animal Services is the only public animal shelter between San Mateo and Santa Clara,” the group wrote. “If it were to disappear, we believe Palo Alto would see many more strays on its streets, more lost pets that never come home, and more unwanted cats and dogs, due to the loss of the low-cost spay and neuter clinic.”

The post Palo Alto mulls major reductions in animal services appeared first on Friends of the Palo Alto Animal Shelter.

Palo Alto could save hundreds of thousands of dollars annually by contracting out all or part of its Animal Services division, but there would be significant tradeoffs, according to a new report.

The city’s budget office is recommending that the division be outsourced in response to Mountain View’s decision to leave the partnership it has had with Palo Alto for animal services since 1993. Palo Alto still has similar agreements with Los Altos and Los Altos Hills.

Mountain View’s departure is expected to blow a $470,000 hole in the division’s annual budget, which was $1.71 million in fiscal year 2011. The Mountain View City Council is set to vote Tuesday on a new contract with the Santa Clara-based Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority.

“The departure of Mountain View from the shared services agreement in (fiscal year) 2012 represents a significant fiscal challenge for the (fiscal year) 2013 budget and future budgets,” Palo Alto police Chief Dennis Burns wrote in a 22-page report released Friday afternoon.

The Palo Alto City Council’s Policy and Services Committee is set to discuss the report and the outsourcing recommendation Thursday.

The city could lower its annual expenditures on animal services to about $500,000 by contracting with the Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority, according to the report. Cost savings totaling $619,105 would come largely through the elimination of more than 13 positions.

But the report notes that contractors would likely provide a lower level of service. For instance, the Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority offers follow-up on barking dog complaints, but the police department would be tasked with making the first contact. The city’s animal control officers currently respond to all complaints made between the hours of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m.

In addition, residents would lose the ability to surrender their animals free of charge. San Jose, another potential contractor, doesn’t accept them and directs residents to the Humane Society of Silicon Valley, which charges a fee of $160, according to the report. The Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority and Peninsula Humane Society charge $150 and $20, respectively.

Four options that leave the Animal Services division partially intact are also outlined in the report.

Under one scenario, the city could save $270,826 annually by eliminating a supervisor, an animal control officer and a part-time volunteer coordinator. However, the remaining officers would have to be scheduled differently and there would be no back-up in the event of simultaneous calls for service. Illnesses, vacations and family leaves would also leave the city without field coverage.

“With a smaller staff pool to share the burden,” Burns wrote in the report, “the propensity of staff burnout and risk of injury would increase.”

A second option proposes to go one step further and eliminate two animal control officers and an animal services specialist. But an animal control specialist position would be created to provide back-up during critical situations in the field. The report pegged the cost savings at $366,063.
The city also could reduce service to mandated and essential levels, saving $194,034 through the elimination of about four full-time-equivalent positions, including a veterinarian, and costs associated with a spay/neuter clinic, volunteer program and store operated by the division. A part-time or contract veterinarian would be retained to alter animals designated for adoption.

The final scenario calls for scrapping the spay/neuter clinic, but keeping a vaccination program. Again, the city would rely on the services of a contract veterinarian, but without fees from the clinic, which generates about $233,000 in annual revenue, it would be left with a net cost of $17,583.

The report was panned Friday by Save Our Shelter, a grassroots group that has sprung up to keep the division intact. The potential loss of a free surrender option is particularly troubling, said spokesman Luke Stangel. Without one, the group fears more animals will be abandoned.

“What we’re talking about is the level of service dropping way below the value of any cost savings,” he said.

Stangel said the report actually paints a picture of a city department that is running efficiently. Mountain View’s departure alone, he continued, is driving the conversation about outsourcing.

“I think the city should focus on picking up another contract,” said Stangel, pointing to Stanford University as one possibility. “That’s the only hole.”

Carole Hyde, executive director of the Palo Alto Humane Society, agreed that the city should shift gears and look for ways to boost revenue. When the committee meets Thursday, she said she plans to present proposals that would reduce the division’s deficit by $840,000 in fiscal year 2013 and an additional $430,000 by fiscal year 2015.

In a statement, the Palo Alto Humane Society said the city has a duty to its four-footed residents.

“Outsourcing would mark a radical change in the principle that has guided the community for 60 years, namely, that localized animal control services make for ‘safe streets, parks and schools’ for people and their pets,” the statement said. “In addition, outsourcing animal services breaches the moral obligation that the City has to animals entrusted to its care. We do not want to see animals shipped to other jurisdictions and we do not want to see the ‘safe community’ principle abrogated by the City of Palo Alto.”

Email Jason Green at jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com.

IF YOU GO
WHAT: The Policy and Services Committee will discuss a recommendation to outsource the Palo Alto Animal Services division and a report outlining various options.
WHEN: Thursday, at 6 p.m.
WHERE: Council Chambers, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Ave.
MORE INFO: View the report at http://tinyurl.com/animalreport

The post Outsourcing of Palo Alto Animal Services division to come at a price appeared first on Friends of the Palo Alto Animal Shelter.

The City of Palo Alto’s longstanding backlog of utility work will get a badly needed shot in the arm if the new budget passes, but will come at the cost of some city programs, according to Mayor Yiaway Yeh.

In his monthly “Message from the Mayor,” Yeh cited the success of City Council in creating a balanced budget since 2009, largely as a result of reforming employee compensation and benefits.

Meanwhile, he said, the City has increased the amount of money spent on infrastructure from the General Fund to $20 million per year and “maintained programs and services the community deeply values.”

City Manager James Keene presented the proposed 2013 budget to council members at a retreat Monday. The new budget calls for “difficult program funding choices,” including outsourcing the beloved Palo Alto Animal Services, while increasing spending on infrastructure.

“Despite the Council’s efforts over the past four years to budget more for infrastructure, it is not enough,” said Yeh. “The City faces General Fund infrastructure needs of $300 million to catch up with deferrals over a generation and the new demands of our future. These cannot be ignored or postponed.”

If money is not found to pay for these needs, city streets may literally begin falling apart, says Yeh. But the local economy does appear to be on the mend.

“As revenues begin to slowly rebound, infrastructure must be in the mix to ensure Palo Alto’s physical assets such as streets and sidewalks, parks, trails, buildings, and emergency and public safety facilities remain safe and continue to provide value to the community,” he said.

Yeh is encouraging residents to get involved in public meetings, however, because funding infrastructure is almost certainly going to come at the cost of other city services.

The complete proposed city budget is available here, and information about meetings is available here.

The post ‘Difficult’ cuts coming to Palo Alto budget appeared first on Friends of the Palo Alto Animal Shelter.

Palo Alto would outsource its animal services, slash nine positions in the Fire Department and cut back on traffic enforcement to balance the books in 2013, according to a budget proposal City Manager James Keene unveiled Monday afternoon.

The public-safety cuts, which are included in the proposed budget, are intended to address the city’s rising employee costs, particularly in pension and health care. Citywide pension costs have spiked dramatically in the past decade, going from $3.2 million in 2002 to $23.9 million in 2012, Keene wrote in the budget’s transmittal letter. At the same time, the city’s health care costs have jumped from $6.6 million in 2002 to $14.9 million in 2012.

“Unfortunately, like cities across California, the benefits paid to our employees have risen over the past decade, dramatically in the past several years, and will continue to grow in the years ahead,” Keene wrote.

The spiking employee costs are casting a shadow in the budget over what has been a relatively strong year for revenue growth in the city. After a three-year slump, sales taxes and hotel taxes have rebounded thanks to strong department-store sales and increased business activity. The budget for fiscal year 2013, which begins July 1, projects $151 million in General Fund revenues, a $4.5 million (or 3.1 percent) increase over 2012.

Expenditures, meanwhile, are slated to grow by $5.6 million between 2012 and 2013. The new budget proposes $152 million in General Fund expenditures, an increase of almost 4 percent from 2012. The main drivers, Keene said, are rising benefit costs, increased infrastructure spending and a lack of concessions from police officers.

“The chief structural issue that the City faces is this simple: expenditures are growing faster than revenues,” Keene wrote in the transmission letter.

Keene acknowledged the recent good news on the revenue front but stressed the need to get further concessions from city workers. The city is in the process of negotiating a new contract with its largest police union, the Palo Alto Police Officers Association (PAPOA), and with the small union of police managers. In March, the city declared an impasse in its negotiations with PAPOA after five months of negotiations.

If the council were to adopt Keene’s proposed budget, the Police Department would face the lion’s share of the cuts in the coming fiscal year. Perhaps the most controversial cut in the proposed budget is the elimination of the department’s busy and popular animal-services operation. The budget proposes to shutter the Animal Services Center, which has provided services to Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos and Los Altos Hills since 1993.

The proposed cut was prompted by Mountain View’s decision last year to opt out of its partnership in the Palo Alto facility and to contract with the Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority. The withdrawal means Palo Alto would no longer receive $450,000 in annual contributions from Mountain View, bringing the city’s cost of running the facility from $700,000 to $1.1 million annually.

Though the council has yet to decide on the matter, the proposal has already galvanized intense community opposition, with dozens of residents sending letters to the council urging them to spare the animal shelter and 260 (as of Monday afternoon) signing an online petition as part of a “Save our Shelter” drive.

According to Keene’s proposed budget, contracting out animal services would eliminate 13 positions and potentially result in about $500,000 in operating costs. The outsourcing proposal would also save the city from having to make major upgrades to the aged facility. The council is also considering alternative uses for the land on which the Animal Services Center and the larger Municipal Service Center, adjacent to the animal shelter, sit. These include welcoming one or more auto dealerships to the site, which has valuable visibility from the highway.

“By contracting out this service, the City avoids the significant capital cost that will be needed to improve the animal-services center facility and provides the opportunity to explore site reuse that could have positive revenue implications for the City,” Keene wrote in the budget.

Another area in the Police Department that would see a reduction in service is traffic enforcement. Keene’s budget proposes keeping six positions in the department vacant and redeploying six officers from the traffic operation to field patrol, a move that the budget document states would lead to “an overall reduction in the level of proactive traffic and parking enforcement.” Keene is also proposing keeping vacant a police captain position.

The Fire Department will also see cuts in the coming year, for reasons largely outside the city’s control. The department has been providing on-site services to SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory. Because of cuts in the U.S. Department of Energy budget, the laboratory has recently decided to opt out of its agreement and to sign a contract with the Menlo Park Fire Protection District for off-site services. The decision means Palo Alto will have to close Station 7 at SLAC, reducing expenditures by $1.4 million. Because some of the cost is reimbursed by Stanford University as part of the city’s broader agreement with Stanford (an agreement that staff is now renegotiating), the city has yet to determine the actual savings that will result from Station 7’s closure.

Keene noted in the budget that public safety has been “largely insulated from cuts over the prior three years” — a period that has seen the city outsource services such as its print-shop operation and park maintenance. He told the council that his budget proposal includes cuts “with generally minimal impact on service levels.”

Public safety isn’t the only area that would see cuts under Keene’s proposal. The Planning and Community Environment Department would eliminate two positions and freeze another one, saving $394,000. Keene is also proposing freezing five positions in the Library Department while Main Library is renovated — a proposal that would save $336,000.

At the same time, Keene is proposing investment of an additional $800,000 in the city’s permitting operation, money that would be used to upgrade technology at the Development Center. Another $300,000 would go to the new “Airport Fund,” which supports the city’s takeover of airport operations from Santa Clara County.

The proposed budget also allocates an extra $2.2 million for maintenance and upkeep of the city’s infrastructure, as recommended by the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission.

The council did not discuss Keene’s proposed budget Monday night. The council’s Finance Committee is scheduled to hold a series of meetings on the document in the coming month, starting May 8. The council plans to adopt a budget on June 18.

The post Cuts eyed for animal services, traffic enforcement appeared first on Friends of the Palo Alto Animal Shelter.

Vowing not to let the City of Palo Alto shutter its animal services center, residents and animal advocates are mounting an effort to keep the shelter open, with all of the markings of a political campaign.

The city manager’s office is recommending closure of the shelter at 3281 E. Bayshore Road, which includes a spay-and-neuter clinic, and outsourcing animal services. The City of Mountain View, which has contracted with Palo Alto Animal Services since 1993, announced in November that it is switching to Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority. That move will leave Palo Alto with $450,000 less for its program.

But opponents say Palo Alto’s services are crucial to care of local animals — not only family pets but wildlife and strays — and to the well-being of residents. Palo Alto’s is the only shelter between Santa Clara and San Mateo, they said.

Since the city’s announcement on March 26, residents and animal-rescue advocates have started at least two petitions. Coming soon: yard signs and buttons and a grass-roots effort to work through neighborhood associations, said Carole Hyde, executive director of the Palo Alto Humane Society, a nonprofit organization that is not related to the city’s animal services.

“As you can imagine this is a very passionate issue,” she said Wednesday.

Calling themselves Save Our Shelter (SOS) and, alternatively, Save Our Animal Shelter, the activists have thus far gathered more than 250 signatures on two online petitions. They also have a Facebook page.

Hyde said the Palo Alto Humane Society is also writing a position paper to explore alternatives to the closure.

When Mountain View’s contract ends this November, Palo Alto would have to absorb the lost revenue or pass some of the shared costs to Los Altos and Los Altos Hills, which contract with Palo Alto. The latter option could force the cities to leave the partnership, Palo Alto officials fear.

Animal Services operates on an annual budget of $1.8 million. It brings in about $1.1 million in annual revenues. Mountain View’s departure would raise Palo Alto’s share of the facility’s cost from $700,000 to about $1.1 million annually. Outsourcing animal services would bring down the city’s net costs to about $500,000, according to staff estimates.

The city is also considering using the animal-shelter land for an auto dealership. The U.S. Highway 101 frontage is coveted by auto dealers, which could add to the city’s coffers.

But Hyde and others said there are ways to recoup the lost revenue and keep the city’s animal program, whose reputation has made Palo Alto a destination for those seeking high-quality services.

The Palo Alto Humane Society currently spends $35,000 at the animal-services center, but it could spend $100,000 annually through its spay-and-neuter underwriting program. If the city were to expand the hours and accept feral animals for treatment, the Humane Society and other rescue groups could bring it more business, she said.

“That’s a lot of lost revenue. It seems a shame for the city to lose that income,” she said. Regarding the possible outsourcing, Hyde said there are perils for taking already-stressed animals long distances for treatment and surgery, and the distance will also burden residents.

“The proximity of a shelter is very important. It’s a blow to residents of Palo Alto and other cities,” she said.

Barron Park resident Doug Moran, who runs the neighborhood email list, said he makes notifying neighbors about lost or stray animals a priority, and he understands what the loss would mean in human terms.

“I see how stressful it is to lose a cat or dog. I see other people spend lots of time when animals get lost,” he said.

Friends of his spent two weeks looking for a lost pet, going from shelter to shelter every day. He said he couldn’t imagine how difficult that would be if people could only go to Santa Clara. The city should consider what is a reasonable level of service for its residents, he said.

“The outsourcing seems entirely focused on money,” he said, adding that there should be other ways to save money.

“I just see so many pointless consultant studies that don’t seem to have any result. Are we making proper choices? There are a lot of inefficiencies,” he said.

“Over the years, I have occasionally seen consultants that brought real value, but too often the consultants did little more than produce reports that were high on flash and low on content,” he said, citing studies that cost between $50,000 and $200,000.

A shelter’s distance from Palo Alto could jeopardize animals’ lives, he said. People who aren’t able to travel a long distance daily to find a lost pet at a shelter might find their family pet has been euthanized because it wasn’t claimed in a few days, he said.

The quality of life in Palo Alto could change if local services go away. People who take in strays might think twice about driving an animal to Santa Clara.

“People would have to take time off from work to do it” or opt not do it at all, he said.

Resident Nancy Hamilton said there are many services the city will suddenly find itself without if animal services were to close. One evening she saw Animal Control Officer William Warrior come to the South Peninsula Veterinary Emergency Clinic with an injured bobcat on the end of a pole.

Questions remain about how wildlife services, including nuisances, will be handled, she said.

The post Residents gear up to save Palo Alto animal shelter appeared first on Friends of the Palo Alto Animal Shelter.

Palo Altans are big pet owners, and the prospect of not having the convenience and top-level service of the city-run Animal Services Center is not a popular one.

But with no apparent interest by neighboring cities or animal shelters to collaborate in continuing a regional facility and with ongoing budget pressures, the city has been pretty much painted into a corner.

Without Mountain View’s $450,000 a year in fees for its share of expenses, the city’s cost will jump from $700,000 to about $1.1 million a year, assuming the remaining partners, Los Altos and Los Altos Hills, will not be asked to help make up for the loss of Mountain View.

The poor physical condition of the shelter and the expectation that it would have to pay for facility improvements were big factors in Mountain View’s decision last November to opt out. Mountain View had also asked for the same level of animal services that Palo Alto residents receive, including treatment for stray dogs and administrative hearings for dangerous animals, a request that would have added more costs for the Palo Alto.

City Manager Jim Keene and assistant manager Pam Antil made the case to the council March 26 that the confluence of events makes this the time to strongly consider closing the shelter and consider other uses for the land.

By farming out the city’s animal control operations to the Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority in Santa Clara, where Mountain View is going this November, the city could reduce its costs to $500,000 a year, they said, versus the $1.1 million or more for maintaining the current facility.

Aware of the strong support for the shelter in the city, Ms. Antil said the city staff does not take their recommendation to outsource the service lightly.

“It doesn’t mean that it’s not emotional or that we don’t care about the services,” she said.

The city’s presentation reflects the difficulty of operating a relatively small but robust animal services operation today. In San Mateo County, most cities contract with the non-profit Peninsula Humane Society, which benefits from economies of scale and salary and benefit levels that are significantly lower than those of municipal employees.

Preliminary discussions with the Humane Society suggest it is not interested in serving Palo Alto or operating an additional facility, but efforts to pursue this possibility should continue since it would likely be the most convenient alternative for Palo Altans.

Barring an agreement with the Humane Society, the city’s only other obvious option is to follow Mountain View to the Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority (SVACA) in Santa Clara.

SVACA operates as a joint powers agency of the participating cities, and it is actively soliciting new partners, including Los Altos and Los Altos Hills, which currently contract with Palo Alto.

Palo Alto currently is seeking proposals from groups interested in taking over and operating the city’s shelter, but staff is not optimistic.

Separate from the policy decision on how to provide animal services to Palo Alto residents is the question of what to do with the 2.4 acre property if the Animal Services Center is closed. The parcel, located just south of the Municipal Services Center along the freeway frontage road, has been discussed as a potential site for one or more automobile dealerships.

Such a conversion to commercial use could generate millions of dollars in sales tax revenues for the city. If a way could be found to relocate the much larger Municipal Services Center, it would open the potential for an auto row that could have a huge impact on city’s financial health in the future.

For now, however, the future of animal services is the urgent problem, and supporters of the current animal shelter should focus their efforts on persuading the Peninsula Humane Society or another group to develop a proposal to operate a local facility somewhere in Palo Alto, East Palo Alto or Menlo Park area. Otherwise, the City Council will have little choice but to join the Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority, the less appealing but only financially viable alternative.

The post Editorial: An unsustainable animal shelter appeared first on Friends of the Palo Alto Animal Shelter.