November 6, 2007
Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9005, we have
reviewed the proposed initiative entitled “Pet Animal Protection Act”
(A.G. File No. 07‑0059).
Background
Under current law, local government animal
shelters and their contractors are required to provide stray live
animals with necessary and prompt veterinary care, nutrition, and
shelter, and to treat the animals humanely. Among other things, the law
requires shelters to make reasonable efforts to notify owners of the
animal’s location, keep records on every impounded animal, operate
during hours that permit working pet owners to redeem pets during
nonworking hours, and to work with humane animal adoption organizations
to promote the adoption of animals. State law requires shelters to hold
impounded animals for a minimum of four to six days (not including the
day of impoundment) to allow owners to claim their pet, or to allow the
animal to be adopted. Shelters are generally prohibited from adopting
out animals that are not spayed or neutered, unless the owner agrees in
writing to have the animal spayed or neutered within 30 days, and a
veterinarian certifies that the animal is too sick or injured to be
altered.
Major Provisions
This measure would place new requirements on
animal shelters operated by—and under contract with—local governments.
It would require these shelters to (1) operate seven days a week for at
least six hours per day; (2) hold animals for a minimum of five to seven
days, not including the day of impoundment, which is longer than the
current period; and (3) implement various programs, such as free and
low-cost sterilization services, foster care networks, and comprehensive
adoption programs that operate weekend and evening hours. Animal shelter
employees would be required to meet specified educational requirements
and pass a newly required state-administered exam.
This measure would also place restrictions on
certain public shelter activities, as well as on the collection and use
of shelter revenues. For example, shelters generally would no longer be
authorized to euthanize unweaned animals and feral cats. Additionally,
shelters would be able to use revenues from dog license fees only as
follows: 60 percent for free and low-cost sterilizations of feral cats
and other animals owned by low-income persons, and 40 percent for
medical assistance of feral cats and other animals owned by low-income
persons.
The measure establishes new civil penalties for
violation of its provisions. It would also require animal rescue groups
and other private shelters that adopt out animals transferred from local
animal shelters to transfer to the public shelters 10 percent of the
revenue generated from adoption activities.
Fiscal Effect
Public animal shelters are operated by local
governments, and supported by a combination of local general fund
monies, user fees (including dog license fees), donations, and state
reimbursements for certain functions.
Local Animal Shelter Costs. This
measure would likely result in additional ongoing costs to operate
animal shelters, as well as potential one-time costs to expand animal
shelter capacity. While public animal shelters vary somewhat with regard
to hours of operation and the types of services offered, the proposed
measure generally would increase the overall required level of services.
In order to comply with the measure’s requirements, many animal shelters
likely will require additional staff and supplies, and thus experience
an increase in annual operating costs. On a statewide basis, the
potential increase in operating costs resulting from this measure is
unknown, but potentially in the mid tens of millions of dollars
annually. The actual cost would depend on a number of factors, including
for example, how local governments implement various provisions of the
measure, the extent to which newly required programs are currently
available, and the number of additional animals requiring services as a
result of the measure.
Additionally, some local governments may have to
acquire and outfit additional space for animal shelter operations to
meet the measure’s requirements. These one-time costs, if any, to local
governments on a statewide basis are unknown, but potentially
significant. It would depend on the capacity of existing shelters, and
the amount of additional space necessary to serve unweaned animals and
feral cats.
Other Funding Impacts on Local Government.
Local governments rely on dog license fee revenues to cover some of the
cost of animal shelter operations. As a result of the measure’s proposed
restrictions on the use of these funds, some local governments may have
to use their general fund monies to continue activities that are
currently funded by dog license revenues. It is unknown how much, if
any, local government funding might be used to maintain support for
services that could no longer be funded using dog license revenues.
Local Revenues. An unknown, but
potentially small, portion of the local costs would be offset by
penalties and adoption fees. The amount of civil penalty revenue
generated under the measure, if any, would largely depend on local
enforcement activities. Generally, while enforcement of animal laws and
regulations varies across local governments, related infractions and
civil penalty collections are relatively infrequent. Thus, the measure
is not likely to generate a significant level of new penalty revenues.
As regards the adoption fee revenues, private
shelters, rescue groups, and other animal care organizations are not
required to report the level of revenues generated by adoption fees. The
amount of adoption fee revenues they would be required to share with
public shelters is unknown.
State Administrative Costs. The
measure would require the state to develop and routinely administer to
prospective animal shelter employees an examination on state animal law,
regulations, and procedures. This likely would result in minor
absorbable one-time costs to develop the examination, and potential
ongoing costs of a couple million dollars each year to administer the
exam, certify individuals, and maintain a database.
Summary
This measure would result in the following fiscal
effects:
·
Probably significant local animal shelter operating costs
in the mid tens of millions of dollars annually on a statewide basis,
potentially small portion of costs being offset by penalty and adoption
revenues.
·
Potential ongoing state administrative costs of a couple
million dollars each year.
Return to Initiatives and Propositions
Return to Legislative Analyst's Office Home Page