Million dollar draft contract for animal control services led members of Woodland City Council to question the validity of the contract’s service cost allocation on Woodland as opposed to other municipalities County.
âOur community south of us has 10,000 more people than us and they pay less than a third of what we pay,â Mayor Tom Stallard said at Tuesday’s meeting.
The concern of council members is that the cost Woodland had to pay has dropped from less than $ 500,000 ten years ago to almost $ 1 million.
Although the annual contribution for this year is less than $ 1 million, the number assumes compensation of over $ 200,000 from the revenue generated by the city through fees.
“The city’s $ 1 million commitment is offset by the license revenues that are attributed to Woodland when a pet owner registers their pet,” said City Manager Ken Hiatt. “These charges are assigned to the jurisdiction of the location.”
“We expect it to be cleared from $ 150,000 to maybe $ 200,000 by the end of the year.”
However, Woodland paid a much larger share of the shared costs paid by Yolo County and cities like West Sacramento and Davis for the same services.
âIn the 11 years that I have been here, we have gone from a net figure of 400,000 to 800,000,â said Stallard. âWe’re paying over a third of the costs, West Sacramento was somewhere around 27%, the county is around 22% and the city of Davis is down at 11%. They pay less than a third of what we pay.
Yolo Sherriff County Animal Control Services Division allocates costs based on an agreed methodology that includes the allocation of fixed annual costs as well as a pro rata share of variable costs based on service calls received from each jurisdiction. and the number of animals housed at the shelter, according to the staff report.
The division is responsible for performing all animal control services for the city, including authorizing animals, picking up stray or injured animals, picking up dead animals, quarantining animals as needed and sheltering, release and adoption of impounded animals.
Stallard argued that he and the board were never given a good explanation of why Woodland was paying so much more than everyone else.
âMaybe it’s up to us that we don’t manage our pet population well, but when we donate $ 1 million to an agency, I would expect managing our problem to be part of the story. this service, ânoted Stallard. “I think there should be a management element in the contract that requires them to manage our use until something is consistent with the other communities contributing to it.”
City Councilor Rich Lansburgh said he believes the government shouldn’t get involved in animal management, saying many animal-loving people in the community would be willing to do the job themselves.
âOther communities across the United States are running a joint venture between the government and a private company to manage their animal control,â Lansburgh noted.
The board did not move forward with the approval of the contract and instead proposed that Hiatt negotiate a nine-month agreement to pay Â¾ of the total mentioned in the contract with negotiation of what he should pay for the remainder of the contract. year. The motion was approved unanimously and the contract will be returned for discussion at a future meeting once Hiatt negotiates new terms with Yolo County.