County looks to renegotiate animal control agreement with the city

Home » Community

Posted March 4, 2022 | By James Blevins
[email protected]

Prior to 2009, the City of Ocala provided animal control services to residents within the city limits. Then, the city sat down with the county and executed an inter-local agreement where Marion County would take over the animal control service in perpetuity.

The city transferred all of its equipment and staff to the county, as well as paid the it a one-time payment of $375,000, according to Darren Park, director of Public Works for the city, during a City Council work session on Feb. 8.

But recently, the county has circled back to the previous agreement made nearly 12 years ago, claiming that its costs to maintain the program have increased and that the previous agreement itself is no longer valid as there is no specified term listed in the agreement’s language.

“They’ve also mentioned that they feel under Florida law neither the county nor the city is obligated to provide any more control,” said Park, adding that the county wished to base an agreement on Florida’s half-cent sales tax formula.

“That means in the first year they would charge us 50% of that formula or $144,000,” he added. “The second year would be 75%. And in the third year, the full amount, which is $288,000, would be due, till the end of the agreement.”

Additionally, the city would need to adopt the county’s animal control ordinance and delegate to the county, said Park. As of now, the right to impose fines for violation of that ordinance is “jettisoned” to the county.

“We got rid of any animal control ordinance,” said Park. “We have nothing. In order to bring us in compliance with them, no matter what we do, we would have to adopt their ordinance.”

According to Jim Sweet, director of Marion County Animal Services, what motivated it to rethink its agreement with the city after more than decade was a joint workshop the Marion County Board of County Commissioners (MCBOCC) had with the City of Belleview on December 19, 2019 regarding the inter-local agreement.

“As our team reviewed Belleview’s animal control inter-local agreement for the workshop, the Office of the County Attorney and Animal Services leadership noted differences among the animal control inter-local agreements amongst the remaining municipalities,” said Sweet to the “Gazette” via email on Feb. 25.

Park said that the city’s position at the time of the inter-local agreement with the county in 2009 was “clear.”

“We gave them our staff, our equipment, and we gave them money. The intent was in perpetuity. We feel like the existing agreement is valid,” he said.

But the county has a clear idea of what it wants a new agreement with the city to look like as well.

“Our preference would be similar guidance and procedures for all animal control inter-local agreements,” said Sweet. “We believe this would allow our animal control officers to have standard procedures and requirements no matter the call; no matter the location of the request for assistance.”

A Necessary Component

Florida Statutes determine whether animal control officers can respond to certain calls. For example, if a dog incessantly barks during the night on property zoned as A-1 (Agricultural) then there is nothing animal control can do for the neighbor complaining about the barking dog. Florida Statute 828.27(7) prohibits local governments from creating ordinances relating to the enforcement regulating the noise from animals held on land zoned as agricultural.

“We receive calls for assistance from residents of the municipalities, cities and counties,” said Jim Sweet. “We receive calls from the county’s neighbors, like Williston, Altoona, Lake and Levy counties. We also receive requests for enforcement that are not within our capabilities.”

“For those calls outside of our county’s boundaries,” continued Sweet, “we direct the caller to the appropriate authority. For animals other than pets and livestock, we provide contact information for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC): for instance, alligators, bears and snakes.”

Additionally, healthy wildlife may be deemed a nuisance but are not within animal control’s jurisdiction—no matter where in the county. County code enforcement sometimes contacts animal control officers when needed, but not very often, according to county officials.

“We may encounter them, and we will take action if the animal—domesticated or not—shows signs of illness as a precaution for public safety,” said Sweet.

Currently, the county has a staff of 51 in the Animal Services department, seven of which are fully trained animal control officers who rotate shifts to ensure that Marion County’s 1,600 square miles are covered 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Overall, Sweet said the county values the role his department plays in the larger tapestry of how it serves its citizens.

“Animal control is one of the necessary components of public safety,” said Sweet. “We prioritize our calls in respect to minimalizing dangers for our citizens.”

Currently, the county has been trying to recruit a qualified veterinarian for a full-time position as well—with no success. The county’s current contract with Valeri J. Love, DVM, will end on March 31 of this year and is only for 12 hours split over two days a week.

The position also involves public consultations and scheduling surgeries two days out of the week, among other duties.

Additionally, the county has plans to use 6% or $2.7 million of the $41.7 million funds collected from the penny sales tax to be dispersed during the 2022-2023 fiscal year for a high-volume spay and neuter clinic.

Times Change

Robert Batsel, an attorney for the city, said they had a good initial discussion with the county’s attorney office in assessing the current situation. He also mentioned that in 2009, the city repealed its section of ordinances that dealt with animal control because it was supposed to be permanent.

“But of course, times change, councils change, commission’s change, costs change, and so now we’re taking a fresh look at this,” he said. “The county is basically coming back to the table and asking the city to pay its fair share under reasonable terms.”

Batsel contended that a judge would not declare the term of the city’s agreement with the county to be unreasonable—no matter if a limit was included in the original agreement itself or not.

“We agree you don’t want to pay me to litigate with the county,” said Batsel. “That’s not going to serve anybody’s interest well. And at the end of the day, it’s going to be somewhere in the middle, where both sides believe it to be.”

Mayor Kent Guinn asked for the number of calls for service, before and after the county took over.

City Manager Sandra Wilson said that the city receives about 2,200 calls for service per year since 2009, while Assistant City Manager Ken Whitehead said that the average call rate for service before the inter-local agreement was between 1,800 and 2,500.

“Not nearly as much as you would have thought,” said Whitehead. “It was not an even increase and not a large increase really. It was a gradual increase.”

Guinn expressed frustration at the county.

“Why does the county just all of a sudden not want to do this anymore?” He asked. “When they’ve got a contract that says they’re to do it.”

Wilson said they hadn’t indicated that they didn’t want to do it, just that they wanted to change the arrangement.

“What happens if we say no,” said the mayor.

Batsel answered.

“Most likely, they will make a policy decision either continuing to provide it without us paying anything or they put us on notice that they’re not going to do animal control in the city anymore,” he said. “At which point, the decision is now ours on how we respond to that.”

Councilmember Jim Hilty asked if the city had paid the county anything after paying the county $375,000 to take over the service per the 2009 inter-local agreement. Park said that the city had not.

Hilty said, “That’s obvious. That’s why they want to come back. We haven’t paid a penny for it since. Is that good on our part?”

“Sure it’s good on our part,” said Guinn. “I mean, that was the agreement, right?”

Park answered,” Yes, it’s a good deal for us. It may not have been the best deal for them. But both parties agreed to it.”

Ocala’s Options

Looking at options and costs, Park told the City Council on Feb. 8 that the city had four options in regards to animal control and negotiations with the county.

Option one would be to maintain the “status quo” and not do anything, see what happens. Option two would be to assign a new inter-local agreement with the county, meeting them at their terms, which would require the city to pay $288,000 a year—half the first year, 75% the second and the rest by the end of the third.

Option three would be to bring the animal control program back into the city.

“This would involve purchasing equipment, vehicles and hiring some FTE [Full Time Equivalent] to cover the service,” said Park.

Initial start back costs were estimated to be about $250,000 (vehicles and equipment) to bring the service back under the city’s umbrella, according to Ashley Dobbs, marketing and communications manager for the Office of Strategic Engagement for the City of Ocala on Feb. 22. The estimated annual operating budget would be $580,000 ($300,000 operating plus $280,000 for personnel).

Ultimately, city staff recommended option four on Feb. 8, which would be to attempt to negotiate revisions to the county’s proposal.

“Specifically, we looked into the duration of the agreement, the notice period and the level of service defined in that agreement,” said Park. “We recommend going back to the county and negotiating those points.”

Wilson reiterated that the city has a really good working relationship with the county and would like to preserve it.

“We’d like to go back and negotiate with them,” she said. “Those points, as far as the duration, level of service, and the termination provisions of the agreement, we don’t want to challenge it in court. We think we can work it out in a way that is agreeable to both parties.”

Animal Control in the County

Jim Sweet said that its animal control officers strive to respond as soon as possible based upon the priority of the call.

Priority one (P1) calls are defined as “human life may be endangered.” This ranking requires immediate assistance and could apply to bites, livestock in road or pets involved in life-or-death moments.

“With this call, our animal control officers drop everything and heard to the scene of the request,” said Sweet. “Unless they are already engaged on a priority one call.”

Priority two (P2) calls are “same-day responses.”

“This ranking applies to a possibly injured animal and other serious concerns related to animal welfare and/or the wellbeing of a pet or livestock. Our officers will investigate before ending their work day,” Sweet continued.

Priority three (P3) calls are “within 24 hours.” Similar but not as urgent as P2 calls. Priority four (P4) and Priority five (P5) calls are “within 72 hours.” These rankings are mostly used for non-urgent requests for assistance or an investigation follow-up. It could also be used for donation pick-ups.

Dispatchers prioritize each call depending on the information they obtain from the request and on a case-by-case basis.

“There’s a lot of weight given to the information we receive when the dispatchers assign the call its initial priority,” said Sweet. “However, the assigned priority level can be updated at any point in the evolution of the case/investigation; upon the animal control officer’s arrival to the scene or for a myriad of other reasons.”

According to numbers provided by the Ocala Police Department (OPD) on March 3, police calls ranging from “a dangerous dog” to “a barking dog noise complaint” have been on a steady rise in the city since 2009.

Below are OPD calls involving “animal crime code” issues from 2007 to 2021:

• 2007—49 calls
• 2008—58 calls
• 2009—70 calls
• 2010—145 calls
• 2011—130 calls
• 2012—143 calls
• 2013—169 calls
• 2014—216 calls
• 2015—243 calls
• 2016—230 calls
• 2017—221 calls
• 2018—152 calls
• 2019—124 calls
• 2020—69 calls
• 2021—46 calls

Public Information Officer for the OPD Jeff Walczak said a change of policy in 2019 concerning cancelling calls that were “not really police matters” might help explain why the number of calls has fallen over the last two years.

“But that is speculative,” he said, adding, “Looking at the data, you can see calls for service before 2009 were climbing but under a hundred each year. The steady increase could be attributed to not having Animal Control in the city.”

Public Comment

Brian Creekbaum, a member of the public who remembers when animal control was still run by the city, spoke during public comment on Feb. 8, expressing concerns with animal control in his neighborhood.

“I got a big pit bull running around now,” he said. “I dealt with animal services while the city did it. I’ve dealt with animal services while the county has it. There have been dogs running loose. Dogs that are very big, capable of doing a lot of damage when attacking somebody.”

Creekbaum said that the city’s level of service before county took over was better.

“When I called the city, they came out in an hour or two. I call the county now, it takes several days to a couple of weeks,” he said. “So don’t tell me the service level is the same.”

Wilson agreed to address Creekbaum’s concerns and recommended that city staff have a conversation with the county in regard to the 2009 agreement, addressing all the issues brought up by council and the public.