Animal Care and Control - Denver · Animal Care and Control . ... or dogs and cats at a licensed...

Dennis J. Gallagher Auditor

Office of the Auditor Audit Services Division

City and County of Denver

Animal Care and Control Performance Audit

July 2012

The Auditor of the City and County of Denver is independently elected by the citizens of Denver. He is responsible for examining and evaluating the operations of City agencies for the purpose of ensuring the proper and efficient use of City resources and providing other audit services and information to City Council, the Mayor and the public to improve all aspects of Denver’s government. He also chairs the City’s Audit Committee.

The Audit Committee is chaired by the Auditor and consists of seven members. The Audit Committee assists the Auditor in his oversight responsibilities of the integrity of the City’s finances and operations, including the integrity of the City’s financial statements. The Audit Committee is structured in a manner that ensures the independent oversight of City operations, thereby enhancing citizen confidence and avoiding any appearance of a conflict of interest.

Dennis Gallagher, Chair Robert Bishop

Audit Committee

Maurice Goodgaine Jeffrey Hart Leslie Mitchell Timothy O’Brien, Co-Chair Rudolfo Payan

Audrey Donovan, Deputy Director of Audit Services, CIA, CRMA

Audit Staff

Chris Horton, Internal Audit Supervisor, PhD Marcus Garrett, Lead Internal Auditor, CIA, CGAP, CRMA Anna Hansen, Senior Internal Auditor, CICA

You can obtain copies of this report by contacting us at:

Office of the Auditor 201 West Colfax Avenue, Department 705 Denver CO, 80202

(720) 913-5000 Fax (720) 913-5247

Or download and view an electronic copy by visiting our website at:

www.denvergov.org/auditor

http://www.denvergov.org/auditor�

To promote open, accountable, efficient and effective government by performing impartial reviews and other audit services that provide objective and useful information to improve decision making by management and the people.

We will monitor and report on recommendations and progress towards their implementation.

City and County of Denver 201 West Colfax Avenue, Department 705 • Denver, Colorado 80202 • 720-913-5000 • FAX 720-913-5247 • www.denvergov.org/auditor


July 19, 2012 Doug Linkhart, Manager Department of Environmental Health City and County of Denver Dear Mr. Linkhart: Attached is the Auditor’s Office Audit Services Division’s report of their audit of Animal Care and Control (ACC). We appreciate your audit request, and we focused on your areas of interest regarding the gap between revenues and expenditures. We also assessed the effectiveness of the City’s requirement that dogs and cats be licensed. We determined that dog and cat licensure, though it raises revenue for the City, is redundant to other public health regulations, such as the requirement that most dogs and cats receive a rabies vaccination and the requirement that most dogs and cats be spayed and neutered. In addition, as you know, the licensure requirement is widely ignored by pet owners, and there are other methods for effecting a reunification between owners and lost pets than licensure. Consequently, we recommend that you act to eliminate the licensure requirement and replace that requirement with an optional pet registration program that, if it contains the proper incentives, would mitigate some of the revenue lost by eliminating licensure. We have also determined that some fees could be adjusted to improve revenues, as well as further assessing the staffing model that uses the same number of animal control officers and shelter staff despite a dynamic workload cycle. We also suggest working for implementation of a revenue fund dedicated to ACC’s various animal welfare efforts to receive registration fees, donations, and fundraising monies, in an effort to encourage otherwise recalcitrant contributors. If you have any questions, please call Kip Memmott, Director of Audit Services, at 720-913-5000. Sincerely,

Dennis J. Gallagher Auditor DJG/cnh

cc: Honorable Michael Hancock, Mayor Honorable Members of City Council Members of Audit Committee




Ms. Janice Sinden, Chief of Staff Ms. Stephanie O’Malley, Deputy Chief of Staff Ms. Cary Kennedy, Deputy Mayor, Chief Financial Officer Ms. Janna Bergquist, City Council Executive Staff Director Ms. Beth Machann, Controller Mr. Doug Friednash, City Attorney Mr. L. Michael Henry, Staff Director, Board of Ethics



City and County of Denver 201 West Colfax Avenue, Department 705 • Denver, Colorado 80202 • 720-913-5000 FAX 720-913-5247 • www.denvergov.org/auditor


AUDITOR’S REPORT

We have completed an audit of Animal Care and Control (ACC). The purpose of the audit was to assess possible changes to fees, fines, and other revenues, as well as identify possible opportunities to reduce the gap between revenues and expenditures. We also assessed the efficacy and effectiveness of dog and cat licensure policy and practices.

This performance audit is authorized pursuant to the City and County of Denver Charter, Article V, Part 2, Section 1, General Powers and Duties of Auditor, and was conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The audit found that dog and cat licensure is redundant to other public health regulations and is ineffective. Specifically, licensure does not independently contribute to public health protection, and the vast majority of pet owners ignore the licensure requirement. Further, the primary purpose of licensure—to reunify owners with lost pets—is accomplished more effectively through alternate means including micro-chipping and rabies identification tags. Owing to the ineffectiveness of licensure, we recommend that the requirement be eliminated and replaced with an optional registration program to preserve an identification option and to help offset the revenue loss due to eliminating licensure. We also found that there is a significant gap between ACC’s revenues and expenditures, and that some fees could be altered to help reduce this gap. Most of the costs incurred by ACC are personnel-related, and we have identified some opportunities to potentially reduce expenditures through the more efficient staffing of animal control officers and shelter staff.

We extend our appreciation to the Manager of the Department of Environmental Health, the interim Director of Animal Care and Control, and the personnel who assisted and cooperated with us during the audit.

Audit Services Division

Kip Memmott, MA, CGAP, CRMA

Director of Audit Services


TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND 4

SCOPE 7

OBJECTIVES 7

METHODOLOGY 8

FINDING 1 9

Denver’s Dog and Cat Licensure Requirement Should Be Replaced with Optional Registration 9

RECOMMENDATIONS 16

FINDING 2 17

ACC Should Identify Opportunities to Increase Revenues and Reduce Expenditures through Enhanced Operational Efficiencies 17

RECOMMENDATIONS 23

APPENDICES 24

Appendix A: Benchmarking Comparison for Animal Care and Control Fee and Fines for Dogs 24

Appendix B: Benchmarking Comparison for Animal Care and Control Fee and Fines for Cats 25

AGENCY RESPONSE 26

P a g e 1

Office of the Auditor OOffff iiccee ooff tthhee AA uuddiittoorr

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Denver’s Dog and Cat Licensure Requirement Should Be Replaced with Optional Registration

The City and County of Denver requires that dogs and cats six months or older be licensed, but we found that this policy is redundant, ineffective, and creates a public perception risk regarding the revenue generated by enforcing an ineffective licensure policy. Consequently, the Manager of the Department of Environmental Health (DEH) should recommend that the City Council repeal the requirement that all dogs and cats be licensed, which some other Colorado jurisdictions have already done, and instead identify incentives to encourage Denver residents to obtain an optional pet registration.

Licensure requirement is an ineffective policy—Denver’s licensure requirement for dogs and cats is an ineffective policy that does not contribute to public health, has very high rates of non-compliance, and often does not result in reunification of pets with their owners. Denver Revised Municipal Code (D.R.M.C.) provides that cats and dogs aged six months or older must have a license.1

A voluntary registration program would be a better alternative to licensure—The Manager of DEH should recommend to the City Council that the dog and cat licensure requirement be eliminated. Although many large major metropolitan areas require pet licensing, some jurisdictions, in Colorado and other states, do not require licensure for dogs or cats. In place of the licensure requirement the Manager of DEH should implement a voluntary pet registration system. This action would clarify for residents that registration is not intended for public health purposes, since residents would not be required to participate. In addition, registration retains licensure’s ability to allow pet owners to identify their pet for reunification, as a complement or substitute for other forms of identification, such as micro-chipping and rabies tags.

However, an assessment of the legal requirements for public health protection related to dogs and cats, as well as discussions with various professionals familiar with animal care and control, failed to identify any impact of licensure on public health. Existing regulations in the City and County of Denver, including the requirement that dogs and cats be vaccinated for rabies, the requirement that most dogs and cats be spayed and neutered, and the prohibition on dogs roaming at large, create an umbrella of protection for which licensure is simply redundant. Further, the policy penalizes dog or cat owners who effectively oversee their animals and who do not create additional work for Animal Care and Control (ACC).

Because removing the licensure requirement could reduce an important source of City revenue, it is important that the registration option be attractive to pet owners so that registration revenues are comparable to previous licensure revenues. Specifically, there likely would need to be additional incentives to convince pet owners to pay for the optional registration of their pets, and ACC and DEH would need to identify ways to

1 There are two exceptions to the licensure requirement contained in the ordinance. Specifically, dogs or cats at a municipal or tax-exempt humane society shelter, or dogs and cats at a licensed pet shop, do not have to be licensed while at those locations.

P a g e 2


market the registration option effectively. Therefore, ACC and DEH should work to identify the benefits of an optional pet registration service as well as create incentives from which participants would benefit. Among these incentives could be approaches not currently in use by ACC, such as limiting the use of off-leash dog parks or other popular locations to owners whose pets have been registered with the City. Further, ACC could provide reduced-price public health services, such as spaying and neutering for owners who register their dogs or cats. In addition, ACC and DEH should work to identify successful methods of marketing voluntary pet registration and its benefits to help mitigate potential loss of revenue due to repeal of the licensure requirement. Finally, the Manager of DEH should work with the Budget and Management Office (BMO) to consider the feasibility of using a dedicated City fund for the purpose of receiving registration revenues that would directly benefit animal welfare.

ACC Should Identify Opportunities to Increase Revenues and Reduce Expenditures through Enhanced Operational Efficiency

While cost recovery is not a requirement or primary responsibility of ACC, the Division should assess methods for increasing revenues and decreasing costs especially during a period when the City is experiencing fiscal duress. An analysis of ACC’s operating revenues and expenditures shows that ACC recovers a minimal percentage of its total operating costs. Specifically, in 2011 ACC had approximately $2.7 million in expenditures and approximately $954,000 in revenues. This gap between expenditures and revenues equates to a 35-percent recovery of costs. ACC should identify opportunities for increasing revenues and reducing expenditures, which may include increasing fees, evaluating the efficiency and efficacy of the current ACC organizational structure, or a combination approach including policy changes. In addition, we recommend in Finding 1 that the licensure requirement be eliminated. Any lost licensure revenues will need to be addressed through enhanced cost recovery efforts.

Changing the existing fee structure may raise revenues—To boost revenue sources, ACC could adjust fees to better reflect the real costs of providing animal welfare services.

• Boarding Fees—Currently, ACC charges $9 per day for boarding pets at the Denver Animal Shelter. Benchmark shelter fees ranged from $6 to $31 for dogs and cats.2

• Adjusted Adoption Rates—ACC could experience an additional revenue boost by implementing adjusted adoption rates based on animal age and species, such as pure-bred dogs. Although ACC is currently adjusting the adoption rates based on animal size, ACC is not practicing the adjustment for pure breeds, which is allowed by D.R.M.C.

Additionally, some jurisdictions include extra charges, for example, for boarding a dangerous dog or for accepting a pet that must be quarantined. ACC has been proactively searching for ways to recover costs, including charging pet owners when, upon intake, an animal requires shots or other veterinarian procedures due to injury.

2 See Appendices A and B for daily shelter fees at all six benchmark jurisdictions.

P a g e 3


• Owner-Requested Euthanasia—ACC charges a $50 fee for owners who request for their pets to be humanely euthanized. ACC, however, waives the fee in situations where paying the euthanasia fee is deemed a hardship. While waiving fees on hardship cases seems appropriate, ACC should develop guidelines for waiving fees on hardship cases.

Reassessing the viability of ACC’s current funding structure could enhance public perception and result in increased revenues through donations—According to representatives from ACC and the Denver Dumb Friends League (DDFL), citizens may hesitate to provide funding to the Denver Animal Shelter because they are convinced that the funds will go the City’s General Fund and, ultimately, may not be used for the welfare of animals. This perception suggests that the creation of a dedicated revenue fund or funds for the shelter may result in increased revenues. For example, Maricopa County, Arizona’s Animal Care and Control Department (MCACC) is a special revenue department. This structure allows MCACC more flexibility in program management and allocation of funding sources with funds largely dedicated to the preservation of the animal care and control function. In Finding 1 we recommend the use of a dedicated revenue fund to collect fees for a proposed optional pet registration program. The use of a dedicated fund could have a positive impact on public perception and create an additional incentive for potential contributors.

ACC may have opportunities to reduce expenditures—ACC may be able to reduce expenditures by reassessing its organizational structure and staffing strategy. In 2011, ACC expended approximately $2.7 million, including $2.5 million in personnel costs. Besides management and administrative support staff, ACC personnel includes seventeen Animal Control Officers (ACOs), six Animal Care Attendants (ACAs), one veterinarian technician, and one part-time veterinarian.

From 2008 through 2011, personnel costs at ACC averaged 94 percent of total expenditures. Auditors analyzed cases that may have required a response from an ACO and found that ACC received an average of 29,700 cases annually from 2006 through 2011.3

During this period, the greatest number of cases occurred from May through August, after which workload declined through the fall and winter before beginning to increase again in the early part of the following year. From 2006 through 2011 the Division received an average of 2,275 cases in the months of May through August, which is 12 percent higher than the other months of the year on average (2,031). Although we identified seasonal fluctuations in ACC’s workload, we did not perform a staffing analysis to determine how staffing levels should differ between peak months in the summer and low months in the winter, as the Peak Performance program within the Office of the Mayor plans to assess ACC’s staffing model later in 2012. To facilitate a more dynamic staffing model for all of animal control, the Director of ACC should work with the Peak Performance program to perform an assessment of the degree to which staff levels might need to change as a more efficient response to the seasonal workload changes.

3 Case data originates from calls received at 311. Auditors did not independently confirm each case required a response from an Animal Control Officer.

P a g e 4


INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND Animal Care and Control

The City and County of Denver’s Animal Care and Control (ACC) Division provides services for animal welfare and control and public health and safety in the community. ACC was established to reduce the dangers and nuisances caused by irresponsible pet owners and to protect pets from abuse, neglect, and homelessness. Further, ACC investigates animal bites, cruelty, and barking dog disturbances and other complaints related to pets and wildlife.

ACC emphasizes public health and animal safety, encourages responsible pet ownership through education and enforcing compliance with animal-related municipal code requirements, and cares for animals sheltered at the Denver Animal Shelter. ACC’s primary activities include animal control and ordinance enforcement; animal care and shelter; veterinarian services for spaying, neutering, and pet vaccinations; adoptions and animal transfers; pet licensing; and a volunteer program. Additionally, ACC assists law enforcement as needed in relation to animal control. Specifically, ACC is responsible for managing animals received from police holds, deaths, and court mandates.

Budget and Staffing—For 2012, ACC has an operating budget of approximately $3 million, which includes funding a staff of thirty-eight employees. Besides management and administrative support employees, ACC’s staff includes seventeen Animal Control Officers (ACOs), six Animal Care Attendants (ACAs), one veterinarian technician, and one part-time veterinarian. In 2011, ACC’s expenditures were about $2.7 million, of which approximately $2.5 million were for personnel costs.

Pet Licensing

The practice of licensing animals started around the turn of the twentieth century. New York City passed the first animal control ordinance in the United States in 1894, with the state of New York enacting uniform statewide regulations in 1917.4

Licensure in the City and County of Denver—The City and County of Denver is responsible for all animal control functions and related ordinance enforcement. Chapter 8 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code (D.R.M.C.) addresses the ordinances related to various aspects of domestic animal behavior, including the prohibition of roaming dogs, a requirement for dogs and cats to have a rabies vaccine, unless exempted by a licensed veterinarian, a requirement to license dogs and cats, as well as regulations on nuisance and dangerous dogs. In addition, D.R.M.C. legal guidance addresses leash laws, animal

Pet licenses remain an issue largely for cities and towns; like Denver, most large major metropolitan areas require pet licensing.

4 New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets. New York State to no longer administer dog licenses in 2011, August 13, 2010, http://www.agriculture.ny.gov/AD/release.asp?ReleaseID=1912.

http://www.agriculture.ny.gov/AD/release.asp?ReleaseID=1912�

P a g e 5


shelter employees, and impoundment at the municipal shelter. Based on review of D.R.M.C., there are several fees that may be charged in connection with enforcement, adoption, or the animal shelter. Further, the animal shelter is explicitly named as the place of impoundment for the City and County of Denver.

The Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.) also address regulations on pet control, pet licensing, and rabies control. Both D.R.M.C. and C.R.S. lay out the purpose of enforcing rabies inoculation, spaying and neutering, and prohibiting dogs from running free with a clear connection to public safety and health. For example, the practice of spaying and neutering has a crucial role in controlling pet overpopulation, can reduce hormone-driven animal behavior, and can prevent animal illnesses such as cancer. However, neither law provides legislative intent or a clear connection of licensing to public health and safety.

Animal Care and Control Boards and Committees

Two regulatory and advisory bodies in the City and County of Denver assist ACC with animal care and control-related decisions: the Board of Environmental Health and the Animal Care and Control Advisory Committee.

The Board of Environmental Health—The Board of Environmental Health (Board) consists of five members, who serve without pay, appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by Denver City Council. The Board is designated by state statute as the local board of health for the City and County of Denver, and its primary functions include adopting rules and regulations, reviewing requests for variances from Department of Environmental Health (DEH) laws, hearing appeals of decisions by the DEH Manager, and otherwise assisting DEH in developing policies. The Board’s members have five-year staggered terms and meet monthly. Some of its members are public health experts, although this is not a requirement. Presently, the Board has no veterinarian representation and has limited resources and research information. Therefore, insight into animal control issues is usually based on information presented to members by ACC.

The Board evaluates and assesses the interest of the general public versus the interest of the animal owners in animal care and control issues. These issues can have a significant effect on the public at large because a number of the risks, such as a rabies outbreak, constitute a collective public health risk involving the entire community and not just the pet-owner population.

The ACC Advisory Committee—The mission of the Animal Care and Control Advisory Committee (AC) is to investigate, evaluate, and report to the Board of Environmental Health on matters pertaining to ACC. The goals of AC are to improve internal and external communications; provide advice on policies, procedures, and best practices; review and provide advice on enforcement functions; and provide advice on creating an animal shelter that progressively and continuously meets the community’s needs.

AC was initially tasked by the Board to address the issues outlined in a 2008 report conducted by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) by prioritizing HSUS recommendations and identifying policies necessary to implement changes. AC’s review also included an assessment of ACC’s field enforcement functions; a revision to D.R.M.C.

P a g e 6


Chapter 8; making considerations on the existing ordinances under Chapter 8; and recommending whether modifications were needed.

As of August 2011, AC’s membership included eight members, including one licensed veterinarian and a representative from an animal welfare organization in Colorado, all of whom are appointed by the Board. Although AC has no authority, it can act as a sounding board for the Board; however, the Board is not required to formally coordinate with the AC.

The Denver Animal Shelter

In June 2011, ACC opened to the public a newly constructed state-of-the-art animal shelter in the Denver area. The new Denver Animal Shelter, a $17 million facility funded by the citizens of Denver through the Better Denver Bond Program, was designed and built to reflect ACC’s commitment to animal welfare and health and the City’s commitment to sustainability. The new shelter offers more space for people and pets and contains new amenities including cat colonies, animal visitation rooms, a barn to house urban wildlife, and artwork.5

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design—In May 2012 the Denver Animal Shelter was awarded the Platinum Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) designation, a coveted national recognition of a building meeting the green standards for an energy- and environmentally-efficient structure. The shelter is the only City facility to have achieved Platinum status.

Other Entities Also Provide Animal Services in Denver

In addition to the Denver Animal Shelter, there are approximately fifteen shelter facilities and professional entities, such as veterinarian societies, in the Denver metro area that serve various functions for the welfare of the animals. For example, the Denver Area Veterinary Medical Society (DAVMS) has managed the Mile-Hi rabies tag program for over twenty years in its quest to maintain a unified rabies identification system throughout the Denver metro area. The program is highly valued, by animal owners as well as animal care and control organizations, because it easily identifies animals as having been vaccinated and reunites countless lost pets with their owners. Among the shelters, the Denver Dumb Friends League (DDFL) is the largest community-based animal sheltering organization in the Rocky Mountain region.

Denver Dumb Friends League—DDFL is a local nonprofit organization that provides similar services to that of ACC. However, DDFL operates on donations, rather than funds from government contracts or from national animal welfare groups. This difference in funding

5 The new Denver Animal Shelter has two cat colony rooms that provide the opportunity for multiple cats to be temporarily housed in one pet visitation room. Cat colony housing allows visitors to view and interact with multiple cats in a more natural setting, as it has multiple levels for cats to climb on and seating for human visitors. It also has the added benefit of allowing those looking to adopt multiple or companion cats the opportunity to see how they interact with other cats.

P a g e 7


is a major distinction between ACC and DDFL, since ACC is government funded and DDFL is privately funded.6

DDFL oversees two main shelter locations and operates two mobile spay and neuter units. Currently, citizens can leave an animal with almost any DDFL shelter of their choosing. Between the various facilities, DDFL receives roughly 26,000 animals a year. Approximately 50 percent of animals received are owner surrenders and 50 percent are strays. If owner information is known, DDFL will transfer animals locally, regionally, and, in some rare cases, nationally. DDFL does not offer pet licensure, but the organization does hand out licensing applications to citizens in an attempt to inform them about licensure requirements in Denver and other jurisdictions.

SCOPE The audit reviewed the Animal Care and Control Division, which acts as the sole enforcement agency for animal control ordinances in the City and manages the Denver Animal Shelter. This audit included a review and analysis of current management processes, laws, revenues and expenditures, and fees and fines established as of June 2012.

The audit was requested by the Manager of the Department of Environmental Health in January 2012. In that request, the Manager asked for audit work in areas related to budget and revenues, as discussed in the Objectives section below. However, while the Auditor’s Office agreed to perform the audit, we preserved the ability to evaluate issues and areas of interest that went beyond the scope of the original request.

OBJECTIVES The original audit request supplied three audit objectives:

• To determine whether ACC’s fees and fines were effective and appropriate for addressing strategic organizational initiatives including increasing pet licensure, ensuring spaying and neutering occurs, encouraging pet adoptions, and enforcing compliance with Animal Care and Control ordinances

• To determine whether ACC’s overall budget, fees, and fines are comparable to other similar organizations in the state and around the country

6 When DDFL was founded, it was named after a London, England, animal shelter called Our Dumb Friends League. In the past, the term dumb was widely used to refer to animals, because they lacked the power of human speech. Although the term dumb is not generally used with that meaning today, the Dumb Friends League retains its historic name because it has significant recognition among Colorado residents. The mission statement of the Dumb Friends League includes these words: "speaking for those who cannot speak for themselves."

P a g e 8


• To determine whether there are opportunities for ACC to increase revenues and reduce expenditures

In addition, the audit team assessed the effectiveness of dog and cat licensure for the City and County of Denver.

METHODOLOGY We used several methodologies to achieve our audit objectives.

• We analyzed the formal audit request, dated January 27, 2012, provided to the Auditor's Office by the Manager of the Department of Environmental Health. We also had multiple meetings with the Manager to clarify his request.

• We analyzed State statutes, the City Charter, and the Denver Revised Municipal Code to assess the legal requirements enforced by ACC.

• We reviewed various internal City documents, including policies and procedures, approved service fees, and approved administrative citations.

• We evaluated various data sets and queries from ACC to better understand Animal Control Officers’ caseloads and the various ways that animals are reunited with their owners.

• We evaluated ACC’s financial data comprising budget, revenues, and expenditures.

• We reviewed internal and external audits completed on ACC and similar programs around the country.

• We reviewed national research regarding best practices and standards for animal care and control.

• We interviewed a variety of subject matter experts and internal management. These individuals included executive management at the Department of Environmental Health and Animal Care and Control, a representative of management at Denver Dumb Friend’s League, and one member each of the Animal Control Advisory Committee and of the Board of Environmental Health.

• We surveyed national animal care and control entities and received benchmark responses from six jurisdictions: City of Minneapolis, MN; City of Seattle, WA; Adams County, CO; Jefferson County, CO; Maricopa County, AZ; and Mesa County, CO.

P a g e 9


FINDING 1 Denver’s Dog and Cat Licensure Requirement Should Be Replaced with Optional Registration

The City and County of Denver requires that dogs and cats six months or older be licensed, but this requirement does not enhance public health, is widely ignored by pet owners, and is not effective at accomplishing the primary purpose of licensure. The licensure requirement, which may have provided a benefit to public health in the past, is now redundant to other requirements that more clearly enhance public health. In addition, compliance with the licensure requirements is very low; Department of Environmental Health (DEH) management estimates that only 18 percent of dogs and 1 percent of cats within the Denver city limits have the appropriate license. Moreover, the City’s only stated purpose for licensure is to reunify lost pets with their owners. However, data provided by DEH shows that other methods of identification, including optional methods such as micro-chipping pets or placing a rabies identification tag on a pet’s collar, are responsible for more owner-pet reunifications than licensure. Finally, although pet licensure is effective at raising revenue for the City, it places a burden on responsible and irresponsible pet owners alike and also could result in the appearance that DEH is enforcing an ineffective policy for financial reasons alone. Consequently, the DEH Manager should recommend that the City Council repeal the requirement that all dogs and cats obtain a pet license, which some other Colorado jurisdictions have already done, and instead identify incentives to encourage Denver residents to obtain an optional pet registration.

Dog and Cat Licensure Requirement is Redundant to Other Public Health Regulations and is an Ineffective Policy

Denver’s licensure requirement for dogs and cats is an ineffective policy that does not contribute to public health, has very high rates of non-compliance, and does not often result in owner-pet reunification. Denver Revised Municipal Code (D.R.M.C) provides that cats and dogs aged six months or older must have a license.7

7 D.R.M.C. Chapter 8, Article II, §8-61. There are two exceptions to the licensure requirement contained in the ordinance. Specifically, dogs or cats at a municipal or tax-exempt humane society shelter, or dogs and cats at a licensed pet shop, do not have to be licensed while at those locations.

However, an assessment of the legal requirements for public health protection related to dogs and cats, as well as discussions with various professionals familiar with animal care and control, failed to identify any impact of licensure on public health. Essentially, existing regulations in the City and County of Denver create an umbrella of protection for which licensure is simply redundant. Further, the policy penalizes dog or cat owners who effectively oversee their animals and do not create additional work for Animal Care and Control (ACC). However, licensure creates an important revenue stream for the City that should be preserved in tight budget times to the extent that is congruent with effective public policy.

P a g e 10


The rabies vaccination requirement protects against the spread of

a potentially fatal disease.

Rabies vaccination requirement exists to protect public health—Denver ordinance requires that dogs and cats aged six months or older be vaccinated for rabies protection.8 Rabies is a viral disease spread from animals to humans through scratches or bites, and without adequate treatment rabies can be fatal in humans. According to the World Health Organization, dogs are responsible for 99 percent of all human rabies deaths.9

Better enforcement of the rabies vaccination requirement is needed—Because of the criticality of rabies vaccinations, some ACC processes should be enhanced to better protect the public. During the audit, we found that while D.R.M.C. § 8-35 requires veterinarians to submit certificates to DEH confirming rabies inoculations performed, a number of veterinarians do not comply with this specific ordinance, and ACC has not dedicated resources to enforce compliance. The ACC Director should reconcile licensing data with inoculation certification data to identify owners that have not yet inoculated their pets. Additionally, D.R.M.C. § 8-64 allows citizens to purchase a license for their pet if they attest to obtain a rabies vaccination within thirty days after adoption.

In Denver, dogs that have been vaccinated for rabies are required to wear a vaccination tag, which identifies the animal’s vaccination information. While dog and cat license tags are also worn by the animal, they do not guarantee that a rabies vaccination has been performed. For example, the City sells licenses that are good for the lifetime of the animal, but rabies vaccinations must be updated periodically during an animal’s lifetime. In addition, individuals may receive a license without a rabies vaccination by simply attesting that they will have their pet vaccinated in thirty days.

10

Spay and neuter requirement and at large prohibition protect the public from stray dogs and cats—Denver ordinance requires that most dogs and cats in the City limits be spayed or neutered.

However, ACC reported that it does not follow up to ensure citizens come into compliance with ordinance. The ACC Director should establish a process to ensure citizens who have attested that they will obtain a rabies certification within thirty days have actually done so.

11 According to D.R.M.C. § 8-70, this requirement was enacted in part to protect public health and safety by reducing the number of stray dogs and cats. In addition, Denver prohibits dogs from running at large, or outside of the control of the pet owner, unless such activity occurs in a specified off-leash enclosure.12

8 D.R.M.C. Ch. 8, Art. II, § 8-31. The requirement is only waived if vaccination would be detrimental to the health of the animal.

Denver ordinance indicates that dogs running at large are a threat to public and private property, and at-large dogs are also a threat to attack or bite a member of the

9 World Health Organization. Fact Sheet N99, September 2011, http://www.who.int/mediacentre/en/. 10 C.R.S. § 30-15-101 states that no license may be issued unless a valid rabies certificate is presented. D.R.M.C. Ch. 8, Art. II, §§ 8-64 states that applicants for a license may receive a license if they agree to get a rabies vaccination within thirty days. As a home rule municipality, D.R.M.C. dictates animal licensing procedure. 11 D.R.M.C. Ch. 8, Art. II, §§ 8-70 and 8-71. There are four exceptions to the requirement for spaying and neutering, including: the health of the animal; animals in the City temporarily for a sanctioned dog show or exhibition; animals in the City for fewer than thirty days in a one-year period; and animals that receive an annual permit from the Denver Animal Shelter. 12 D.R.M.C. Ch. 8, Art. II, § 8-16.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/en/�

P a g e 11


The requirement that dogs be spayed or

neutered further enhances public

health and safety by reducing the

population of stray animals.

community.13

It is difficult to assess the rate of compliance with the spay and neuter requirement, but ACC estimates spay and neuter compliance for the City is approximately 24 percent for dogs and 11 percent for cats. Although spay and neuter compliance is somewhat difficult to estimate, ACC’s estimate is based on the ratio of dogs and cats altered during intake at the shelter.

Thus even without licensure, Denver already has laws that protect the health and safety of the community from stray or unleashed dogs.

14

We discussed licensure’s potential public health benefits with management in DEH and ACC, and members of the Board of Environmental Health and the ACC Advisory Commission. None of the individuals identified a public health benefit to the licensure requirement. This feedback strengthens the initial finding discussed above regarding the legal provisions for animal control that relate to public health. Because Denver has requirements to protect the public against the transmission of rabies, and from the threat to public health and safety of large numbers of stray dogs and cats, the requirement for licensure has become redundant. These other requirements create an umbrella of protection for public health and safety to which licensure does not contribute.

As will be seen, this rate of compliance is higher than the rate of compliance for licensure, and spaying and neutering provide a clear benefit to public health and safety. Further, this indicates that many citizens see the value in having their pet spayed or neutered, but may not see the value in licensing.

Compliance with the licensure requirement is poor and other methods of reunification appear to be more effective than licensure—According to ACC and the City’s Budget Book, licensure’s primary purpose is not to protect public health and safety but rather to reunite lost animals with owners. Since pet ownership is not officially tracked, ACC must estimate the rate of licensure among pet owners in Denver.15

Despite the stated purpose of licensure to return pets to their owners, there are alternative methods for reunification, such as micro-chipping and the rabies tag, that are more successful in Denver at accomplishing reunification. While a number of animals received at the Denver Animal Shelter in 2011 had multiple forms of identification, only 5 percent (32 of 614) of dogs and 10 percent of cats (2 of 22) were returned to owners specifically due to licensure (license tags). By contrast, in the same calendar year, 44

ACC estimates only 18 percent of dogs and just 1 percent of cats are licensed in the City. The average estimate for dogs licensed in six jurisdictions that responded to our benchmark survey was 35 percent.

13 D.R.M.C. Ch. 8, Art. II, § 8-48. 14 The associated difficulties of obtaining accurate spay and neuter numbers are not unique to the City and County of Denver. Five of the six jurisdictions that responded to our benchmarking survey did not provide estimates for the percentage of cats and dogs spayed and neutered in their respective jurisdictions. 15“U.S. Pet Ownership Statistics,” The Humane Society of the United States, accessed April 26, 2012, http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/pet_overpopulation/facts/pet_ownership_statistics.html.

http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/pet_overpopulation/facts/pet_ownership_statistics.html�

P a g e 12


Rabies tags and micro-chipping are more

effective than licensure for reunifying owners and lost pets.

percent of dogs (271 of 614) were returned due to microchips, followed by 13 percent (79 of 614) due to rabies tags.

A member of management from the Denver Dumb Friends League (DDFL) also reported to the audit team that licensure’s effectiveness for reunifying owners and pets is diminishing, in part due to the low rate of licensure compliance. This individual stated that rabies tags, which are more often found on pets than licensure tags, usually provide a sufficient amount of information for DDFL to begin tracking down the pet’s owner. This process is made even easier if the associated

veterinarian clinic maintains accurate and up-to-date records. Thus the rabies tag, which is placed on the animal that has been vaccinated against rabies, is associated not only with the protection of public health but also with the reunification of pets and their owners. In addition, the DDFL representative reported that micro-chipping is a reliable method of reunification, provided that shelter staff are properly trained to use micro-chipping equipment and the owner maintained up-to-date information with the company providing the micro-chipping service.

Several other jurisdictions do not require licensure—As noted in the Introduction & Background, most large major metropolitan areas require pet licensing. However, some jurisdictions, in Colorado and elsewhere, do not require licensure for dogs or cats. In Colorado, state law allows jurisdictions to require licensure for dogs and cats but state law does not mandate a licensure requirement. Douglas County, Colorado, for example, does not require pet licensing based on the position that permanent identification methods, such as micro-chipping, are more effective at reunifying pets and their owners. The City of Greenwood Village and the Town of Parker are two other Colorado jurisdictions that do not require dog licensure. Furthermore, three of six benchmark jurisdictions do not require licensure for cats.16

Jurisdictions in several other states have waived licensure requirements. In two Kansas cities, Shawnee and Mission, residents still need to vaccinate their dogs and cats against rabies and pets must wear identification tags or plates, but paying for a pet license is a practice that has been discontinued. After obtaining public input through a survey and weighing administrative costs against the purpose of the licensing program, these communities opted to discontinue requiring pet licenses. The two main purposes of having pets licensed were to get dogs and cats vaccinated for rabies and to reunite the pets with their owners. However, the municipalities discovered that most people vaccinated their pets anyway, so licensure was not an effective incentive for vaccination. Moreover, they found that rabies vaccinations and identification tags had the same effect of connecting lost pets with their homes. Although the cities were aware of the revenues that would be lost from licensing fees, city officials realized that, based on the number of licensed dogs living in these jurisdictions, only a small percentage of the population was complying with the license ordinance.

16 Benchmark jurisdictions that do require licensure for cats include: Adams County, Colorado; Jefferson County, Colorado; and Maricopa County, Arizona.

P a g e 13


Raising revenue through the license requirement creates public perception risk—Licensure is a source of revenue to the City in difficult budget times. In 2011, animal licenses provided approximately $315,000 in revenue for the City. However, raising revenues using licensure creates some areas of risk and concern.

First, enforcing a law that only succeeds in raising revenue creates heightened public perception risk for a public enforcement agency. As noted in our audit of the Denver photo enforcement programs, released in December 2011, revenue streams are not inherently problematic for enforcement programs but become problematic when revenue enhancement is the only demonstrable success resulting from enforcement. Since pet licensure does not independently contribute to public health and safety in Denver, has low rates of compliance, and is less successful in reuniting pets and owners than other methods, it is difficult to conclude that dog and cat licensure is successful in any area other than revenue enhancement.

In addition, there is a perceived inequity when pet owners whose pets do not become stray, bite or attack people, or bark too much must still pay a license fee. These individuals do not create work for ACC other than the minimal administrative cost of processing an application. However, they must pay to support the work of the agency when more effective use of fees and fines for individuals whose animals more directly affect public welfare would create more equity in ACC’s funding.

Possible penalty for non-compliance would be very high compared to some other jurisdictions—In 2010, the Environmental Health Board approved increasing the penalty for non-compliance with the licensure ordinance from $75 to $250 for the first instance (offense) of non-compliance.17

A higher fine amount may create a greater incentive for compliance with the licensure requirement. However, the Manager of DEH has not officially implemented the approved rate increase. Furthermore, ACC has not identified a direct correlation between an increase in the penalty amount and the associated effect on the rate of licensure compliance among pet owners. As shown in the summary of dog and cat fees and fines in Table 1, prior to implementing the increased fine amount, ACC is aligned with many benchmark respondents in relation to fees and fines assessed. However, the approved fine increase would result in Denver enforcing one of the highest fines in the country for non-compliance with municipal pet licensure requirements. Additionally, four of six jurisdictions do not penalize for the non-licensure of cats. See Appendices A and B for a more detailed comparison of related fees and fines.

17 Environmental Health Rules and Regulations. Governing Administrative Citations for Violations of the Animal Code Housing Code Noise Control Ordinance. Amended July 9, 2010: 10.

P a g e 14


Table 1: Fines for Failure to License

Denver Hennepin County,

MN

Adams County,

CO

Jefferson County,

CO

Maricopa County, AZ

Mesa County, CO

King County. WA

Non-licensure fine for dogs

1st offense $75 ($250) 2nd offense $100 ($500) 3rd offense $200 ($750)

$100 up to $2,000

$25 (doubles each offense)

1st offense $50

$2/month 1st offense $50 2nd offense $100 3rd offense $250

$125

Non-licensure fine for cats

1st offense $75 ($250) 2nd offense $100 ($500) 3rd offense $200 ($750)

$100 No cat license required

No cat license required



$125

Source: Auditor’s Office benchmark responses. Note: Although an increase in license violations was approved, ACC has not enforced the new rates as of May 2012. The approved new license violation rates are $250 for first-time violations, $500 for the second violation, and $750 for third and subsequent violations

The Licensure Requirement Should Be Eliminated and Replaced with an Option that Provides Incentives for Owners to Register Their Pets

Since the City’s requirement to license dogs and cats is not contributing to public health and safety, is not the most effective means of reuniting pets and owners, and is ignored by approximately 80 percent of dog owners and 99 percent of cat owners, the Manager of DEH should recommend to the City Council that the dog and cat licensure requirement be eliminated. In place of the licensure requirement the Manager of DEH should implement a voluntary system for pet registration.

Voluntary registration would have immediate advantages—The implementation of a voluntary pet registration system would have many immediate advantages. First, a voluntary pet registration system clarifies for residents that registration is not related to public health protection. Second, voluntary registration retains a method for owners to possibly locate their lost pets. For some pet owners, micro-chipping may not be a desirable option, and registration could be a good alternative. In addition, registration could complement other forms of identification and provide additional insurance against losing a pet. Third, ACC could implement voluntary registration using existing administrative systems used for licensure. Further, by eliminating the legal requirement for licensing, voluntary registration could ease the administrative burden currently associated with licensing enforcement.

Registration could affect revenues and would need to be effectively marketed—Because eliminating the licensure requirement removes a legally enforceable incentive for citizen

P a g e 15


participation, it is critical that any optional registration program be adequately marketed and demonstrate tangible benefits for program participations. Specifically, pet owners would likely need additional incentives to convince them that paying for optional registration is worthwhile. Accordingly, the Director of ACC and the Manager of DEH should identify cost-effective benefits for pet owners. Options could include limiting the use of off-leash dog parks or other popular locations to owners whose pets have been registered with the City. Further, ACC could provide reduced-price public health services, such as spaying and neutering, for owners who register their dogs or cats. In addition, the Director of ACC and the Manager of DEH should work to identify methods of successfully marketing voluntary pet registration to help mitigate potential loss of revenue from repealing the licensure requirement. Finally, the Director of ACC should engage the Animal Care and Control Advisory Committee in discussion regarding proposals for creating incentives for Denver pet owners to register their pets.

Using a dedicated fund could better incentivize pet registration—According to DEH management, dedicating registration revenues for animal welfare purposes could benefit ACC and provide an additional incentive for pet owners to register their pets. Research performed by DEH and ACC management indicates that individuals would be more likely to participate in programs that provide revenue to ACC if they were sure that the monies would directly benefit animal welfare. Therefore, along with implementing a voluntary pet registration program, the DEH Manager should work with the Budget and Management Office to assess the feasibility of using a dedicated City fund for the purpose of receiving registration revenues and directing them to animal welfare. DEH already has a similar fund, the Environmental Health Donation Fund, which is designated for the welfare of animals in ACC’s care. The DEH Manager should determine if optional registration revenues can be placed in this fund or if a separate dedicated fund should be created.

P a g e 16


RECOMMENDATIONS Auditors have concluded that licensure is an ineffective policy. However, if the Director of Animal Care and Control and the Manager of the Department of Environmental Health do not agree with this conclusion, or if the City Council does not agree to repeal the licensure requirement, recommendations 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, and 1.7 through 1.9 should be applied to the existing licensing program.

1.1 The Director of Animal Care and Control should reconcile licensing data with inoculation certification data to identify owners that have not yet inoculated their pets and follow up with delinquent owners accordingly.

1.2 The Director of Animal Care and Control should establish a process to ensure citizens who have attested that they will obtain a rabies certification within thirty days have actually done so.

1.3 Since the City’s requirement to license dogs and cats is not contributing to public health and safety, is not the most effective means of reuniting pets and owners, and is ignored by about 80 percent of dog owners and 99 percent of cat owners, the Manager of the Department of Environmental Health should recommend that the City Council repeal the licensure requirement.

1.4 In place of the licensure requirement the Manager of the Department of Environmental Health should implement a voluntary pet registration system.

1.5 The Director of Animal Care and Control and the Manager of the Department of Environmental Health should identify and implement cost-effective benefits for pet owners.

1.6 The Director of Animal Care and Control and the Manager of the Department of Environmental Health should work to identify methods of successfully marketing voluntary pet registration to help mitigate potential loss of revenue from repealing the licensure requirement.

1.7 The Director of Animal Care and Control should engage the Animal Care and Control Advisory Committee in discussion regarding proposals for creating incentives for Denver pet owners to register or license their pets.

1.8 The Manager of the Department of Environmental Health should work with the Budget and Management Office to assess the feasibility of using a dedicated City fund for the purpose of receiving registration or license revenues and directing them to animal welfare.

1.9 The Manager of the Department of Environmental Health should work with the Budget and Management Office to determine if registration or license revenues can be placed in the Environmental Health Donation Fund or if a separate dedicated fund should be created.

P a g e 17


FINDING 2 ACC Should Identify Opportunities to Increase Revenues and Reduce Expenditures through Enhanced Operational Efficiencies

While cost recovery is not a requirement or primary responsibility of the Animal Care and Control Division (ACC), ACC should assess methods for increasing revenues and decreasing costs especially during a period when the City is experiencing fiscal duress. From January 2008 through December 2011, ACC only recovered an average of 27 percent of total costs. An assessment of ACC processes is necessary to identify opportunities for increasing revenues and reducing expenditures, which may include increasing fees, evaluating the efficiency and efficacy of the current ACC organizational structure, or a combination approach to include policy changes. In addition, we recommend in Finding 1 that the licensure requirement be eliminated. Any lost licensure revenues will need to be addressed through enhanced cost recovery efforts.

An analysis of ACC’s operating revenues and expenditures from January 2008 to March 2012 shows that ACC recovered a minimal percentage of total operating costs. Specifically, as shown in Table 2, in 2011, ACC had approximately $2.7 million in expenditures and approximately $954,000 in revenues, a 35 percent cost recovery.

Table 2: ACC Revenues 2008 – 2011

Account Name 2008 2009 2010 2011

Animal Licenses $ 118,809.00 $ 234,671.50 $ 339,885.00 $ 314,621.00

Rabies Tag Fees $ 26,226.00 $ 86,820.00 $ 113,470.00 $ 107,825.00

Appeal of Administrative Citation

- $ 475.00 - -

Copies and Certificates $ 9,770.25 $ 14,586.55 $ 12,829.50 $ 8,452.00

Dog Pound Fee $ 174,777.50 $ 201,181.00 $ 198,941.50 $ 215,226.96

Late Fees - - - $ 50.00

Administrative Penalties - $ 33,772.50 $ 295,504.75 $ 307,485.91

Total Revenue $ 329,582.75 $ 571,506.55 $ 960,630.75 $ 953,660.87

ACC's Cost Recovery 13% 22% 38% 35%

Source: PeopleSoft Query run by auditors on March 14, 2012. Note: Dog pound fee is the internal financial tracking term for revenues related to the animal shelter, such as shelter fees.

ACC revenue accounting structure can be enhanced—ACC generates revenue by licensing dogs, cats, and other animals. Currently, licensing in Denver is required by law,

P a g e 18


and Denver offers a tiered license program, charging $15 for a one-year dog or cat license, $40 for a three-year license, and $150 for a lifetime license. In 2011, ACC earned approximately $315,000 in animal licenses, or 33 percent of 2011 revenues. Additionally, ACC earns revenues when enforcing ordinance violations on pet owners who fail to license their pets or to display license tags. This violation results in fines of $75 that the pet owner will be assessed for a first-time offense, $100 for second violation, and $200 for third and subsequent violations.18

In addition to licensing fees, ACC takes in revenue through boarding and impoundment rates, vaccinations, adoptions, spay and neuter fees, microchip implants, and owner-requested euthanasia fees. For example, dog pound fees represent 22 percent of total revenues and are the combination of boarding or impounding animals, adoptions, spay and neuter procedures, vaccinations other than rabies, and owner-requested euthanasia. Rabies vaccinations and tags generated approximately $108,000 for ACC in 2011, representing 11 percent of total revenues.

Revenues earned from penalties associated with violations of D.R.M.C. are accounted for in the City’s PeopleSoft financial database under the administrative penalties category. In 2011 administrative penalties generated approximately $307,000 in revenues for ACC, or 32 percent of the 2011 revenues.

Although ACC captures the monies collected under broad accounting categories, the agency does not separate the monies by individual activities. In fact, ACC does not have individual revenue accounts to account for activities such as spay and neuter, vaccinations, adoptions, euthanasia, and micro-chipping; therefore, ACC cannot monitor how revenues from these activities have fluctuated over the years and develop and adapt strategy accordingly. Under the direction of Denver’s Controller’s Office, in 2009, ACC started reporting the monies collected from administrative citations separately from other revenue accounts for more transparent accounting practices. However, the Manager of the Department of Environmental Health (DEH) should work with the Controller’s Office to ensure that ACC can identify revenues for individual sources, such as dog versus cat licenses, micro-chipping, adoptions, spay and neuter, vaccinations, and euthanasia.

Donations are accounted for in a separate fund—Unlike licenses, vaccinations, rabies, and citation earnings, which are accounted for in the City’s General Fund, donations are recorded into a dedicated account. The Environmental Health Donations account is a Special Revenue Fund account, which is dedicated to activities related to the well being of the animals at the animal shelter. Funds from this account can only be used by ACC for pet welfare.19

18 Although City Council has approved an increase in license violations starting April 2012, ACC has not enforced the new rates as of May 2012. The approved new license violation rates are $250 for first time violations, $500 for the second violation, and $750 for third and subsequent violations. Environmental Health Rules and Regulations. Governing Administrative Citations for Violations of the Animal Code Housing Code Noise Control Ordinance. Amended July 9, 2010.

Donations spiked in 2011 thanks to generous bequests, totaling over $100,000. For years other than 2011, donations to ACC averaged about $9,000.

19 According to the 2012 City Budget, a Special Revenue Fund accounts for the proceeds of revenue sources that are restricted by law or administrative action to expenditures for specific purposes. Primary sources of revenue are federal, state, local, and private grants; the health special revenue funds are for health purposes and activities primarily in the Department of Environmental Health, with the Department’s Manager being the expending authority. http://www.denvergov.org/budget/CityBudget/tabid/435000/Default.aspx Page 75.

http://www.denvergov.org/budget/CityBudget/tabid/435000/Default.aspx%20Page%2075�

P a g e 19


Changing the Existing Fee Structure May Raise Revenues

While the Environmental Health Rules and Regulations govern the establishment of animal shelter fees, Chapter 8 of the D.R.M.C. provides the legal guidance related to animal care, control, and licensing. In addition, D.R.M.C. sets forth the conditions under which an impounded animal may be released to a person, which conditions include that the animal must be spayed and neutered prior to release. Denver charges between $25 and $80 for spaying and neutering cats and dogs and fines up to $999 for failing to spay and neuter. Although ACC has spaying and neutering fees and failure to spay and neuter fines in place, the agency reports only 24 percent of dogs and 11 percent of cats are spayed and neutered. By better enforcing spay and neuter compliance, ACC would inherently raise revenues.

Some fees could be increased or implemented—ACC charges $9 for boarding pets at the shelter. This fee is low compared to other benchmarked jurisdictions since some include an extra charge for boarding dangerous dogs or accepting a pet at the shelter with an infectious disease that may require the animal to be placed in quarantine. Based on benchmarking, ACC should assess raising its daily shelter boarding fee to better offset actual animal care and shelter costs. In addition, ACC management should charge pet owners when, upon intake, an animal requires shots or other veterinarian procedures due to injuries. See Appendices A and B for a larger list of benchmark cities’ fees and fines associated with dogs and cats.

ACC could realize an additional revenue boost by implementing adjusted adoption rates based on age and species of animal, such as pure-bred dogs, to better reflect market demand. While currently allowed by D.R.M.C. § 8-153.5, ACC has not implemented this option. ACC is considering implementing adjusted adoption rates for pure-bred animals for 2013.

Euthanasia is sometimes performed for a fee but the fee can be waived—ACC charges a fee to owners who request that their pets be humanely euthanized. ACC, however, will waive owner-requested euthanasia fees in cases deemed hardships. Hardship cases include evictions, police seizing a pet owner, or requests from the police for the shelter to care for homeless animals. In the majority of the hardship cases, personnel at the shelter will waive the fee. According to ACC’s 2011 Animal Intake Statistics, there were a total of 630 euthanized dogs and about 203, or 32 percent, were categorized as owner surrender, which is the way ACC identifies hardships in its records. Likewise, there were 531 euthanized cats in 2011 and 147, or 28 percent, were categorized as owner-surrender cats. Accordingly, no fees were collected in these 350 cases. Each owner-requested euthanasia case can potentially earn the shelter additional revenues, when fees are not waived. For example, in 2011 the 350 hardship cases reported by ACC could have earned the shelter approximately $10,000 in net revenues.20

20 The fee for euthanasia is $50. Based on a 2008 study conducted by ACC, it costs the shelter $21.56 to euthanize relinquished animals that the owners brought to the shelter. Based on this 2008 study, we assumed that ACC realizes $28.44 in net revenue for performing euthanasia.

P a g e 20


No clear guidelines have been established regarding when it is appropriate to waive an owner-requested euthanasia fee. Since ACC does not have written policies listing specific criteria identifying hardship cases, agency personnel do not have clear or consistent policies and procedures to follow. Although it is not a bad practice to allow waivers, the lack of written guidelines hinders consistency and transparency in the practice. Additionally, the agency is unable to assess revenues lost by not charging fees for the associated procedures. The Director of ACC should ensure that ACC implements clear and concise written policies and procedure that categorize hardship cases in order to identify and normalize requests for waivers as well as track forgone revenues.

Assess Viability of Current Funding Structure

According to ACC management and a representative of the Denver Dumb Friends League (DDFL), citizens may hesitate to provide funding to the Denver Animal Shelter because funds go to the City’s General Fund and may not necessarily be used for the welfare of pets. The main difference between ACC and DDFL is that ACC is government funded and DDFL is privately funded. According to DDFL, that agency is funded entirely by private donations. Many of DDFL’s monetary donations are obtained from the ten or more fundraising activities performed by DDFL throughout the year, such as the Furry Scurry two-mile walk fundraiser, direct mail, and online giving.

If ACC were to consider adopting fundraising practices similar to those used by DDFL, it likely will be limited by the current governance structure. Specifically, ACC does not have a partner organization, such as a 501(c)3, which can receive tax-deductible donations for animal welfare. This limits ACC’s ability to raise funds as effectively as non-profits like DDFL. Maricopa County utilizes a 501(c)3 partner, Friends of Animal Care and Control, which raises money to pay for their spay/neuter program. In 2011, coupled with services provided by their partners, Maricopa County estimated more than 50,000 pets received low-cost or no-cost surgeries. The DEH Manager has begun assessing the possibility of partnering with a 501(c)3 organization to enhance revenue for animal welfare activities that are part of ACC’s mission.

ACC may also experience greater flexibility if it were to consider a different internal funding structure. For example, the benchmarking survey shows that Maricopa County’s Animal Care and Control (MCACC) is a special revenue department. This structure allows MCACC greater flexibility in program management and allocation of funding sources with funds largely dedicated to the preservation of the animal care and control function. In Finding 1 we recommend the use of a dedicated revenue fund to collect fees for a proposed optional pet registration program. The use of a dedicated fund could have a positive impact on public perception and create an additional incentive for potential contributors.

ACC Expenditures Are Primarily for Personnel Costs

ACC’s expenditures for 2011 were about $2.7 million. Of this amount, $2.5 million was for ACC personnel, which comprises thirty-eight full-time equivalent (FTE) positions. Seventeen positions, or 45 percent of the ACC personnel, are Animal Control Officers

P a g e 21


(ACOs) while 16 percent of ACC staff are Animal Control Attendants (ACAs). As shown in Table 3 below, Denver has the second-highest number of ACOs compared to six benchmark jurisdictions.

In addition to its paid City employees, in 2011 ACC staff reported a total of six thousand hours donated by 182 volunteers, each volunteer donating an average of thirty-four hours during the year. Volunteers assist with laundry, pet grooming, and neighborhood events for the welfare of the pets at the shelter.

Table 3: ACC’s Staff, Volunteers, and Pets

Jurisdiction 2011 Total Pet Intake

ACC Total FTEs

ACC Enforcement

Officers

Total number of Volunteer

in 2011

Volunteer Hours

donated in 2011

2011-Average # of Pets cared for

per ACC personnel

and Volunteers

Jefferson County

738 15 11 <200 643.5 3

City of Seattle-King County

4,300 32 14 500 20,000 8

City of Minneapolis

4,379 11 11+1 police officer

77 Not specified

50

Mesa County 5,363 15 5 20 4,500 153 City and

County of Denver

5,963 38 17 182 6,259 27

City of Brighton 6,063 23 6 402 11,909 14 Maricopa

County 46,998 160 24 400 34,834 84

Source: Auditor’s Office benchmark responses.

ACC may have opportunities to reduce expenditures—From 2008 through 2011, personnel costs at ACC averaged 94 percent of total expenses. According to an analysis of complaint and service cases handled by ACC Dispatch—calls which may require a response from an ACO—ACC received an average of 29,700 cases per year from 2006 through 2011. During this period, the greatest number of cases occurred from May through August, after which workload declined through the fall and winter before beginning to increase again in the early part of the following year. From 2006 through 2011 the Division received an average of 2,275 cases in the months of May through August, which is 12 percent higher than the other months of the year on average (2,031). A complete overview of trends for complaint and service cases handled by ACC is captured in Figure 1. As shown in this bar graph, ACC experiences a seasonal distribution of work, which suggests that a seasonal staffing model might be a better fit. A seasonal staffing model would vary the number of staff based on workload demands.

Although we identified seasonal fluctuations in ACC’s workload, we did not determine how staffing levels should differ between peak months in the summer and low months in

P a g e 22


the winter. However, the Peak Performance program being undertaken by the Office of the Mayor plans to assess the ACC staffing model later in 2012. To facilitate a more dynamic staffing model for all of animal control, ACC should work with the Peak Performance program to perform an assessment of the degree to which staff levels might need to change as a more efficient response to the seasonal workload changes.

Figure 1—ACC Complaint and Service Cases 2006 – 2011

Source: Information Technology Services CRM Query for ACC Cases. Note: Insufficient data available for January 2006 to draw conclusions. The spike in October 2010 is attributed to program changes in CRM not specifically related to ACC case loads.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

P a g e 23


RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 The Manager of the Department of Environmental Health should work with the

Controller’s Office to ensure that Animal Care and Control can identify revenues attributable to individual sources, such as dog licenses, micro-chipping, adoptions, spay and neuter, vaccinations, and euthanasia.

2.2 To facilitate a more dynamic staffing model for animal control, the Director of Animal Care and Control should work with the Mayor’s Peak Performance program to perform an assessment of the degree to which Animal Care and Control staff levels may need to be addressed to account for seasonal workload changes.

2.3 The Director of Animal Care and Control should assess raising the daily shelter boarding fee to offset actual animal care and shelter costs and better align with other jurisdictions, based on benchmarking.

2.4 The Director of Animal Care and Control should charge pet owners when, upon intake, an animal accepted at the shelter requires shots or other veterinarian procedures due to injury.

2.5 The Director of Animal Care and Control should ensure that Animal Care and Control implements clear and concise written policies and procedure that categorize hardship cases in order to identify and normalize requests for waivers of fees for owner-requested euthanasia.

2.6 After completing a feasibility assessment, the Manager of the Department of Environmental Health should decide whether Animal Care and Control will partner with a 501(c)3 organization to enhance revenue for animal welfare activities and receive tax-deductible donations on behalf of Animal Care and Control.

P a g e 24


APPENDICES Appendix A: Benchmarking Comparison for Animal Care and Control Fee and Fines for Dogs

Denver Hennepin County

Adams County

Jefferson County

Maricopa County

Mesa County

King County

Licensure Fee 1yr $15 3yr $40

Life $150

$50 senior or low-

income $35

Altered - $0 Unaltered -

$25

Altered - $15 Unaltered -

$30

Altered - $17 Unaltered - $42

Senior - $6

1yr - $10 3yr - $25

$32

Non-licensure fine

1st $75/$250 2nd $100/$500 3rd $200/$750

$100 up to $2000

for repeat offenders

$25 (doubles each

offense)

$50 $2/month 1st $50 2nd $100 3rd $250

$125

Failure to display license tag fine

1st $50 2nd $75 3rd $100

$25 $25 (doubles each

offense)

$30 Court assesses 1st $50 2nd $100 3rd $250

$49

Rabies vaccination fee

$15 N/A $10 N/A $0 during special events;

walk ins $20 - $34

N/A $10

No rabies vaccination fine

1st $100 2nd $250 3rd $500


offense)

N/A Court assesses 1st $50 2nd $100 3rd $250

$49

Failure to display rabies tag fine

1st $50 2nd $75 3rd $100


offense)

N/A Court assesses 1st $50 2nd $100 3rd $250

$49

Neutering Fee $50 (over 75lbs) $70

$25; senior or low-

income $10

N/A N/A N/A N/A $200

Failure to neuter fine

1st $250 2nd $550 3rd $999

$200 N/A N/A NA NA N/A

Spay Fee $60 (over 75lbs) $80

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $200

Failure to spay fine

1st $250 2nd $550 3rd $999

$200 N/A N/A NA NA N/A

Relinquishment fee

N/A $0 $50 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Adoption Fee 1 yr $150 (1 to 6 yrs) $130

(6yrs+) $95

$90 $100 N/A $0 - $150 $65 $5

Daily Shelter Fee

$9 $15; dangerous

dog $25

$7 N/A $31 $6.00; quarantine/

dangerous dog $10.00

$10

Euthanasia Fee $50 $0 $85 N/A $23 $20 $25

Source: Auditor’s Office Benchmark responses.

P a g e 25


Appendix B: Benchmarking Comparison for Animal Care and Control Fee and Fines for Cats

Denver Hennepin County

Adams County

Jefferson County Maricopa County

Mesa County

King County

Licensure fee 1yr $15 3yr $40

Life $150

$50 senior or

low-income $35

N/A N/A N/A 1y $10 3yr $25

$25

Non-licensure fine

1st $75 2nd $100 3rd $200

$100 N/A N/A N/A N/A $125

Failure to display license tag fine

1st $50 2nd $75 3rd $100

$25 N/A N/A N/A N/A $49

Rabies Vaccination Fee

$15 N/A $10 N/A $0 during special events;

walk ins $20 - $34

N/A $10

No rabies vaccination fine

1st $100 2nd $250 3rd $500

$100 N/A N/A N/A 1st $50 2nd $100 3rd $250

$49

Failure to display rabies tag fine

N/A $25 N/A N/A N/A N/A $49

Neutering fee $25 $25 senior or

low-income $10

N/A N/A N/A N/A $80

Failure to neuter fine

1st $250 2nd $550 3rd $999

$200 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Spay Fee $40 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $85

Failure to spay fine

1st $250 2nd $550 3rd $999

$200 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Relinquishment Fee

N/A $0 $50 N/A $96 N/A N/A

Adoption fee (<6 months) $95 (6 mo - 6yrs) $87

(6yrs+) $60

$60 $50 N/A $0 - $150 $65 $5

Daily shelter fee $9 $15 $7 N/A $31 $6 $10

Euthanasia fee $50 $0 $85 N/A $23 $20 $25

Source: Auditor’s Office Benchmark responses.

P a g e 26


AGENCY RESPONSE

P a g e 27


P a g e 28


P a g e 29


P a g e 30


P a g e 31


P a g e 32


P a g e 33


Animal Care and Control - Denver · Animal Care and Control . ... or dogs and cats at a licensed...

Documents

Transcript of Animal Care and Control - Denver · Animal Care and Control . ... or dogs and cats at a licensed...