Council OKs ‘Bridge’ Pact with Humane Society, Will Explore Less Expensive Alternatives

The City Council on Monday approved a new one-year contract with the Pasadena Humane Society and SPCA to provide animal control and welfare services for the city – but opened the door to explore other, less expensive means in the future, following a significant fee increase.

Meanwhile, the president and CEO of the Humane Society, Dia DuVernet, defended the nearly $375,000 increase the council somewhat reluctantly OK’d. DuVernet told Pasadena Now, “The fee increases were due to increased costs, and increased standards of care, and evolutions in animal care and animal sheltering that are resulting in saving more animals’ lives.

“We’re fully committed to providing animal-control services (to the city),’’ DuVernet said. “We’re not committed to, or have any interest in, compromising our quality of care.’’

The independent, nonprofit PHS, whose relationship with Pasadena for animal services dates back 116 years, has historically worked under three- to five-year contracts.

But now it will now work under a “bridge year” deal that “will allow the city to analyze potentially cost-effective and sustainable alternative options for the provision of future animal control services,” according to a staff report from the city’s Department of Public Health.

“The need to seek alternative options has arisen because of higher costs proposed by PHS,’’ the staff report said.

Under the expiring deal, the city paid $1,250,924 a year for the PHS’s services. The society proposed an increase of $715,636 – for a total proposed cost of $1,966,560. For the bridge-year contract that was approved Monday, the city negotiated an increase of $374,963 – for a total of $1,625,887.

According to the staff report, during that bridge-year contract, the city will investigate an array of possible alternatives to the PHS for animal control and welfare, including:

• Partnering with the L.A. County Department of Animal Care and Control.
• Forming a joint powers authority with other affected cities for animal control.
• Creating a division within the city to handle animal-control issues.
• Developing a hybrid approach of two or more of those options.
• Continuing to contract with PHS.

Monday’s unanimous council approval of the new one-year pact came after months of talks that began last September, when the PHS first broached the increased costs with Pasadena and seven other area cities with which it contracts.

The city managers of those municipalities, including Pasadena’s Steve Mermell, sent a letter to the society at the time, questioning the proposed hikes and as well as the PHS’s transparency – the latter point being refuted by DuVernet in her interview with Pasadena Now following Monday’s council session.

“We met with all the city managers that were impacted by the fee increases numerous times (and) did share the methodology used (in) the outside cost analysis that was done,’’ DuVernet said. “Additionally, we shared in full detail all of the costs of our organization related to providing animal care control. We were fully transparent with all of our financials.’’

Mermell on Monday told the council, “We had a lot of questions with their methodology. We don’t necessarily agree with their methodology, how they allocate costs.

“In any given year, the Humane Society would benefit from contributions that people make — bequeaths, charitable donations, etc., and the society would use a portion of that revenue towards the cost of animal control and furthering their mission,’’ Mermell said.

“Recently, (the PHS has) decided that they’re no longer going to do that, and they feel that the animal-control contracts from the cities need to support 100 percent of certain operations. It’s largely just a philosophical change in how they see their role, and who should be paying to underwrite the cost of their services.’’

Mermell also referred to the PHS expanding its facilities several years ago as being a factor.

“It does appear that by (expanding their facility), they’re offering new programming, and they essentially said to us, the increase in contract cost is in part to support that new programming. And of course, the contract cities, we point out to the Humane Society, that we didn’t ask for that – those aren’t services we wanted to purchase.

“From the city’s standpoint, we want sort of an a la carte contract, where we contract for animal control, visiting the parks to enforce the off-leash (law), picking up that dead animal in the street … and some other services.

“The Humane Society has traditionally said that they provide a broad range of services and we need to support those as well. So, a lot of it is philosophical in what the city should be paying for.’’

DuVernet, meanwhile, agreed that the PHS’s level of care for animals has increased in recent years, particularly since the expansion of the facility. And she defended that philosophy as a core value of the society.

“While cost is certainly a consideration for cities and decisions related to animal-control services, outcomes for animals should be an equally important factor,’’ she said. “We were forced to increase our fees due to rising costs, and those costs are required to achieve the expected standards of care and sheltering outcomes.’’

DuVernet added that “the city contracts have increased only by the CPI (Consumer Price Index) over decades, but (the levels of) animal care and sheltering have evolved exponentially.’’

“Saving animals’ lives comes at a higher cost than euthanizing animals after an impound period, as was previous practice for most shelters and unfortunately is still common practice for some shelters,’’ DuVernet said. “Pasadena Humane does not euthanized animals due to length of time in the shelter.’’

An IRS filing for the society covering 2017 showed revenue of $12.7 million and expenses of $10.7 million. According to city spokesperson Lisa Derderian, “We noted to her (DuVernet, last year) that the public filings of the PHS show a surplus of revenue over expenses for several years and questioned why the need for so large an increase in one year.”

In her interview with Pasadena Now, DuVernet explained that by saying, “That surplus was used to pay off the debt on the new building. … We’re not passing along that cost to the city.’’

“What we are able to do as a result of our new facility is provide a really improved standard of care,’’ she added – pointing to an outdoor play area for animals, an increase in the number of veterinarians and a new intensive-care unit for sick and injured animals.

“All of it resulted in us being able to save more lives, which is what our mission is. It’s not just animal control, it’s all that comes with that.”

DuVernet also pointed to the PHS’s 91 percent “live release rate” and 100 percent placement rate for adoptable animals in 2019.

“Those services come at a cost,’’ she said. “It would be much easier if we just provided animal control, [if] we impounded animals for the required amount of time that they were required to be impounded and then euthanized them, which was the practice decades ago by most shelters, but that’s not the practice now.’’

Council Member Victor Gordo suggested Monday that, among the possible alternatives the city could explore in the coming year is some kind of more cost-effective hybrid — involving the PHS but perhaps limiting some of its services.

“One function is the shelter function and the other function is the enforcement of laws and animal control,’’ he said. “If we can, together with other cities, bifurcate the two and achieve better service, hopefully at lesser cost, I would encourage that.’’

For her part, DuVernet said, “We truly believe that we’re going to be able to provide better outcomes for the animals than any other alternative that Pasadena or any of the other cities we serve will be able to find.”