2011 2:00:00 PM

Monday, November 28, 2011 2:00 PM
745 4th Street, Sparks, NV 89431

General Business: 6.2

Title: Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Direction Regarding Questions on the Funding and Operations of the Washoe County Animal Services Fund in Fiscal Years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013.

Petitioner/Presenter: Shaun Carey, City Manager/Steve Driscoll, Assistant City Manager

Recommendation: The Sparks City Council engage Washoe County in a conversation regarding questions on the funding and operations of the Regional Animal Services.

Financial Impact: Unknown

Business Impact (Per NRS 237):
A Business Impact Statement is not required because this is not a rule.

Agenda Item Brief: Discussion of Regional Animal Services.

Background: See the attached Adobe Acrobat file for background history.

Analysis: Outstanding Questions Related to the Washoe County Board of County Commissioners (WC BCC) budget action on September 27, 2011(Board Agenda Item 7.): 1. If there is a need to reduce the operating budget for Animal Services by the WC BCC ordered 10% budget cuts due to reduced collection of taxation revenues, are the expenditure reduction and the permanent revenue transfer of the $0.0037 ($450,000) to the General Fund of the County not a double revenue/expenditure reduction to Animal Services? 2. Who or what entity determined the Animal Services Special Revenue Fund balance was sufficient to support the activities of Animal Services operations to substantiate the layoff or the removal of employee positions from the Animal Services compliment? 3. Is it the County’s intent to not collect the voter-approved 2002 Animal Shelter Bond and Tax Override in Fiscal Year 2012-2013 but rather add the corresponding amount onto the County’s General Fund property tax rate? If so, what verbiage or explanation is going to appear on City of Sparks citizens’ tax bill? 4. Is it the County’s intent to continue collecting the voter-approved 2002 Animal Shelter Bond and Tax Override in Fiscal Year 2012-2013 and then transfer the receipts to the County’s General Fund? If so, GASB 54 restricts the use of “restricted funds” and under what authority allows for or empowers the County to continue collecting the voter-approved 2002 Animal Shelter Bond and Tax Override while depositing those funds in County’s General Fund without violating GASB 54? 5. What authority does the County possess to allow for the non-collection of the voter-approved 2002 Animal Shelter Bond and Tax Override? 6. If the County is choosing to temporarily not collect the two cents for Animal Services, why is the money being transferred to the County’s General Fund versus being offered back to the city from which it came, as the transfer was to be designated for funding Animal Services per the 2002 Animal Shelter Bond and Tax Override ballot question and requisite interlocal agreement? 7. If the County plans to cease collecting the voter-approved 2002 Animal Shelter Bond and Tax Override for the fiscal year 2012-2013, what is the County’s plan for reinstatement of the collection? NRS 354.5982 states if collection of a voter approved tax is stopped, only by action of the voters can the collection be reinstated. What authority does the County have to start and stop the collection and deposit of the voter-approved 2002 Animal Shelter Bond and Tax Override? 8. Since there is approximately $4 million dollars of restricted funds sitting in the account, is not a misrepresentation of the fund status to say that budget cuts are necessary due to a “fund shortage” and in the same action redirect the restricted funds which are a dedicated source of funding to the County’s General Fund? Outstanding Questions Related to the Washoe County Board of Commissioners’ budget action on September 27, 2011(Board Agenda Item 7.) as it relates to the interlocal agreement (City of Sparks Agreement A-2954) creating a consolidated Regional Animal Services: 1. Are the County’s field officers citing and is the County prosecuting the animal control violations as dictated by the interlocal agreement [Article 8 Paragraphs 8.1 and 8.2]? 2. Is the County maintaining the industrial standards as agreed to in the interlocal agreement [Article 12 Paragraph 12.1]? 2a. What are the specific standards the County is operating the facility and field operations as mentioned in the interlocal agreement [Article 12 Paragraph 12.1]? 2b. What performance measures are keep to show compliance of the standards mentioned in the interlocal agreement? If performance are kept, what the specific results for the past five operating years? 3. Are the County’s actions (e.g., reducing the County’s property tax rate contribution designated in Article 4 Paragraph 4.1.1) a unilateral amendment of the interlocal agreement and, therefore, a violation thereof? 4. What authority does the County possess to allow for the unilateral amendment of the interlocal agreement without the approval of the cities?

Alternatives: The Council can invite an appropriate Washoe County representative to attend the Council meeting on November 28, 2011 to address the abovementioned questions and others that may arise from the discussion.

Recommended Motion: Any action by the Council will be a result of the discussion of the issues provided within this staff report and/or the answers provided by Washoe County as to its actions related to the FY2011-2012 and 2012-2013 County budgets; the current interlocal agreement between the agencies; and the proposed operational changes to the Regional Animal Services.

Attached Files:

20111114 Staff Report RE WC Animal Services Budget FY2011 thru 2013.pdf

Animal Control Answers from WC.PDF

Previous Item

Next Item

Return To Meeting