to Nevada Humane Society
"Marsha, thank you for your interest in hearing from NHS about the possibility of operating animal services for Washoe County on a contract basis. "
Summary
This document identifies benefits and considerations regarding the outsourcing of Washoe County Regional Animal Services (WCRAS) functions to Nevada Humane Society (NHS).
Background :
Historically, many cities and counties choose to outsource animal services for their community to a local humane society or SPCA. Recently, local governments have increasingly looked to privatization or outsourcing of a number of community services in an effort to address the reduction in revenue caused by the recent economic challenges. (The cities who have done this have experience 200% budget increases, some even higher.) The increased cost of medical care is stunning.
Outsourcing of animal services is generally chosen for two reasons:
· Public perception most members of the public feel that a humane society or SPCA has both the appropriate animal care expertise along with the best interest of the animals in mind which often times reduces public concerns and complaints to government officials. (I will be happy to provide you with links to failed partnerships that have left agencies nearly bankrupt) NHS lost almost 6 million dollars in 4 years through deficit spending. These figures are available on the 990”s and the county needs to start being responsible for who it allows to “ partner”using the County name.
· Cost Savings—These private organizations can generally provide this necessary public service at a lower cost, There is no cost savings, again, happy to provide names and links to jurisdictions that have suffered fiscally from trying to run a shelter like a sanctuary, think Lieds Nevada) in part due to the overlapping nature of services with their own work and also the lowering of employee costs. (The first choice for cost saving is leaving cats on the streets, this creates a health and welfare issue) Please read Hillsborough County Veterinary Association sues county to prevent TNR)
In Washoe County (WC), the animal services functions have been regionalized and in part, are already outsourced to NHS. Under the current agreement with NHS, WCRAS has responsibility for field operations and the sheltering of stray animals while NHS has responsibility for owner surrendered animals, including their housing, veterinary care and the handling of all pet adoption services for WC. This has enabled the county to save resources by outsourcing services which is traditionally an integral part of providing animal services to a community.
(With the little respect that’s due, NHS has held the shelter portion of the duties, they have failed to accept owner surrendered animals on many occasions and violated the contract. They also imported “ small highly desirable dogs (their words) from Las Vegas while turning away Washoe county residents who needed to surrender an animal. Using the shelter.holding portion of any Animal Control Agency as a Sanctuary is not the best use of resources.)
The two parties share a facility on Longley Lane that was constructed in 2005 and occupied in February 2006. NHS paid $4.5 million toward the cost of building the county-owned facility, essentially paying rent in advance and enabling the county to lower the amount financed for this needed facility. (Per a management level former NHS employee that amount was reduced to a little over 2 million and has not been paid, it’s being paid in increments,) Additionally, NHS pays 58% of the maintenance and utilities for the ongoing operation of the shared facility, though NHS does not always have control over the expense decisions that are made. (58% is the percentage of the facility that is designated for NHS operations.) (The internal audit did not find that NHS was timely in their payments, nor have they been good tenants. Their portion of the building is overcrowded which translate to overworked therefore needing more maintenance and driving up costs. Animals are kept in areas designed for humans, when the walls are ripped out the County is doing the maintenance. Please read the Audit thoroughly and I will be happy to provide you with statistics if needed, or copies of comments made by the Assessment team.This community is extremely animal-friendly with nearly 10,000 residents adopting pets each year from Nevada Humane Society and an additional 1,000 annual pet adoptions occurring in the community from the SPCA of Northern Nevada. Citizens voted by a substantial majority to tax themselves to create this partnership between WCRAS and NHS at a time when other proposals were voted down. (As a person who worked my butt off on the ballot initiative I can tell you it was never meant to create this travesty, of cat lined hallways and multiple dogs to a kennel It was built to create a healthier less crowded environment for animals and staff)
While we need to respect the public’s commitment to this cause and maintain the support for animal services in the community, we also need to find ways to reduce the tax burden to local taxpayers. For the past few years, please see audit, NHS has “ borrowed” from the WCRAS side of the building, we have subsidized them through using our software at no charge. TNHS would “borrow” medications and other supplies, lots of other supplies. The NHS part on Chameleon should have been $12,500 per year. They quit paying but continued to access the software. The owner surrender euthanasia they refused, were done on the County side at Taxpayer expense including the cremation or rendering charges, as appropriate. ) This proposal offers a way to accomplish both of these goals.
Advantages
Cost savings—Overall program cost would be reduced by:
· Eliminating redundancies in administrative staffing costs. (What redundancy? The County is not paying NHS Staff, although the County is picking up a lot of NHS slack)
· Streamlining shelter operations by combining similar functions/services for greater efficiencies. (For example, currently operating two admissions/intake rooms—front and back on both sides of the facility.) (There are no “ similar functions” owned dogs are property and treated as such, they must be handled differently than owner surrenders which can be adopted or put down at once. Strays have to be held 5 days in a single run because the county can get sued into the next century if they let my dog get hurt)
· Eliminating duplicate record-keeping, data entry, and paperwork generated in duplicate, which is substantial given that currently thousands of animals are entered into and dispositioned out of two systems. (This no savings, NHS pays for their record keeping which serves a different animal population than what is served at WCRAS)
· Making bulk purchases and obtaining quantity discounts on materials and supplies. (It Costs NHS nothing to beg for food on Craigslist, County feeds a quality product based on the needs of shelter animals, no savings at all to the County from this.)
· Dramatically improving overall efficiency, the flow/ability to move animals, through better use of space and ability to make decisions more quickly. The use of space in the NHS side of the building is in conflict with the air exchange set up, and floor space requirement outlined in NRS, We don’t need their space, they need ours. Kennels would very quickly fill up and be putting owned dogs at risk through overcrowding and allowing volunteers access to owned animals)
· Creating enhanced operational flexibility for the future which would significantly reduce the likelihood that additional shelter space would be needed to be constructed as a result of future community/animal population growth. (Humane euthanasia of unadoptable animals will allow this building to last out the 30 years we planned when we did the ballot, NHS keeping of dangerous and sick dogs is what will cause a need for a bigger warehouse.
· Eliminating current communication concerns which cause frustration and inefficiencies for citizens, government officials and the two parties. (The only “ communication concerns I have seen have been the unwillingness of NHS to honor the Interlocal and SOP agreements) NHS admits in many forums they do not take all owner surrenders, nor will they accept doa, or owner request euthanasia, this burden goes on the taxpayer)
· Preserving the fund balance for building and fleet maintenance. Current management is rapidly spending this down. (NHS had the use of a spay neuter van purchased by the county to be used by both agencies with a split maintenance agreement, they never paid maintenance and sold the Spay Neuter van and bought an “ adoption Van” The County did not get part of the money from the sale. Our fleet is old and long past time for replacement. Under Mr. Schneider we were given funding for “ hard spending” and Mitch bought a big fancy” boy toy” Not the new trucks we needed on a daily basis. It’s like we are driving a 20-year-old Honda civic to work and Dad buys a $70,000 RV. That left this administration with the job of purchasing much needed work vehicles.
Improved Customer Service for the Public―including:
· Extended hours for lost-pet redemption (evenings, weekends, most holidays and into the evening hours), which would increase redemptions and citizen satisfaction, decrease length of stay, and lower costs. (Several national studies have shown that expanding hours for redeeming pets has not increased return to owner, I am on 30 forums with professionals all across the country as well as national agencies.)
· Simplification of services where citizens would only need to deal with one entity when it comes to reporting or seeking help with animal concerns. This would reduce citizen confusion and frustration. ) What would simply service is if NHS would honor the contract and take owner surrenders, perform the agreed to euthanasia and pay their bills, again 990’s are your friend.)
· Enhanced benefits from more consistent use of proactive programs to address common problems that citizens experience, such as excessive barking, intact roaming dogs, neighbor issues, containment of dogs that repeatedly escape, free-roaming cats, low-cost spay/neuter assistance, and veterinary care needs when pet owners cannot afford it. (This has got to be a pitch for the “ help desk” commonly know to respectable shelter directors as the deterrent desk. The only spay neuter they provide is for feral cats and that is in violation of state vaccination laws and Dr. Kate Hurley answered in her seminar at NHS that “ they just flew under the radar” with that one, so it’s not like compliance is big on their agenda. )
Potential Challenge
Washoe County would have to find suitable placement or lay off approximately 30 employees. Current staff could be given preference in NHS's hiring, however, with the pay differential; some may not be interested in this opportunity. If the county shifted the employees wouldn’t that negate any “ savings” how dumb is that.. And we are going to let volunteers run a 14 million dollar building? )
Financial Overview
In reviewing WCRAS budget documents; it appears the current budget for the animal services program is approximately $4.8 million, which is believed to be $674,000 in excess of current revenues. It is assumed that this overage will be addressed by utilizing the program's existing fund balance (approximately $4.5 million), which was amassed during the housing boom. Assuming program costs remain relatively the same for the next five or six years, the fund balance will be exhausted and the program will likely have to be subsidized by the county's general fund (approximately $800,000 annually) or drastic reductions in staffing and services will need to be made.
While further discussion would be needed, NHS estimates it could provide the same services, with the addition of expanded hours for the public to redeem lost pets and generally more efficient services for the community, at a substantial savings of $800,000 to $900,000. Please see Austin Texas, Delaware, any jurisdiction that has tried this. The cost goes up because it costs more to store animals because the medical needs increase with time. Please look at the 990’s for NHS and understand why they need to get the County coffers in their hands again.
Assumptions
This concept recommendation is based upon current information available to NHS and will require further details and discussion to work out a mutually fair and equitable agreement between the two parties that would meet the needs of the citizens and the animals of the community. This proposal includes the following assumptions, which are open to discussion, of course:(NHS has refused to negotiate clear back sin ce NHS hired Brown, her “ agreement “ with Mitch Schneider was soundly rejected by the BCC because it involved demands not consistent with sound fiscal practice.)
· NHS provides shelter operations and field operations for Washoe County, with the exception of criminal matters and animal permits, and would be compensated at a mutually agreed upon amount substantially lower than current costs. ) NHS got rid of its animal humane officers, so they have nobody to do field work. Nor are they fluent in state law as shown so clearly over the years. )
· Code Enforcement would employ an officer to handle Kennel, Cattery, Exotic and Dangerous Dog Permits. (The county would hire someone to do their work, haven’t the code people got their hands full already?)
· Code Enforcement or local police (TBD) would enforce State Statute Enforcement/Misdemeanor Citation cases (dangerous dog, hot car, animal cruelty, etc.). (So the Cops are going to be dogcatchers? That will go over well, that would be the Sheriffs Dept since the cities sub contracted with the County)
· Civil penalty authority provided to trained field personnel. Who is going to “ train” these people?
· Washoe County or the Sheriff’s Office keeps the recently donated Command Center vehicle and provides operation and coordinates with field services staff during disasters to provide for the needs of animals. (How sweet of NHS to give the county it’s own vehicle, be still my heart…that will work well since they want the deputies to be dogcatchers.
· Vehicles and equipment including the dispatch center for RAS would be leased to NHS. NHS would carry insurance on the vehicles and equipment. (NHS has not proven itself worthy of any further lease agreements with Washoe County, its failure to maintain it’s own side does not bode well for giving them more floor space to overcrowd and destroy.)
· Performance Standards would be established based on current performance levels, including median range response time for various types/priorities of calls (also calls that were scratched), Return-to-Owner rate and other reasonable measurements of performance. These would be reviewed annually. (Say what??) gibberish
· Policy review and appropriate code revisions made related to the following:
o Recognition of TNR in codes. (Pages and page of legal reason this won’t fly)
o Clarity on policies in relation to euthanasia of owned animals (owner requests for pet disposal, euthanasia, and other medical requests). (NHS refused to honor the SOP now and why would we think the future would be different. When under Mr. Schneider (NHS go to man) a Mr. Santos brought in a 12 year old pitbull with advanced testicular cancer. The dog was in pain and the vet recommended euthanasia. The man had no more money (used it all trying to save the dog) and the vet gave him a letter and sent him to Longley lane. NHS refused, he then came to WCRAS, and Mitch refused as well. This very sick suffering animal was sent out the door. The owner pulled the stereo out of his car and sold it to relieve the misery of this cancer-ridden dog, and get it put to sleep. Mitch currently works for NHS and has often bragged he would “ run WCRAS from the NHS side “ I hope if the BCC considers this they are sued to the moon for failure to do diligence. They should have been sued for breach of contract years ago, but now those people are gone.
o Recognition of return-to-owner policy.
· The fund balance would be used for capital improvements and vehicle fleet replacement.
Conclusion
Outsourcing the WCRAS shelter operations and field services to NHS would be a substantial benefit to WC by creating a more efficient and coordinated operation, resulting in substantial cost savings ($800,000 or more annually) in addition to increased service levels and citizen satisfaction. ( OMG just read about all the failures and then the tax works of the “ partner “, and be very grateful that some of us are willing to work with you and not against you as we try to get this facility back on track. How dare this even be mentioned without someone wearing a clown suit?













