For the past couple of months Sunnyvale has been hedging when faced with committing about $2.6 million toward funding the construction of a 24,588-square-foot shelter for the Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority. Sunnyvale shares membership in the authority through a 2000 joint powers agreement with Saratoga, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Campbell, Cupertino and Santa Clara.

According to the agreement, each member will contribute a percentage, based on human and animal populations and usage rates, toward the total construction cost. Sunnyvale's percentage is the largest at 32.41 percent; Saratoga's is the second smallest, at 7.99 percent, behind Monte Sereno.

The initial construction cost estimate, in early 2000, was projected to be $6.5 million. However, this summer an updated estimate had the cost at upwards of $10 million, raising concerns for all the members that they would have to pay more than they expected.

This was of particular concern, said Saratoga Councilman Stan Bogosian—who is also the chairman of the authority's board of directors, made up of a council member from each member city—because the entire purpose of the authority was to streamline animal control costs.

The authority came about after a 1998 state law increased the amount of time shelters were required to hold stray animals. For the Humane Society of Santa Clara Valley, said authority general manager Deborah Biggs, that would have taken up space it preferred to use to house animals for adoption. So the Humane Society told the cities in the county that contracted with it for animal control services—all seven members of the authority, plus San Jose and Milpitas—that it could no longer provide those services.

San Jose eventually decided to build its own shelter that would serve both it and Milpitas. The other seven cities determined that the long-run costs of contracting with another agency for animal control services would be more expensive than building a shelter of their own, as there are so few operating animal control agencies that could set uncompetitive contract rates, Bogosian said.

"When you build your own shelter, you can have long-term control," he said. "We need to look at the costs over a 20- to 30-year time frame."

But this summer the initial costs were rising beyond what any of the cities had expected. And while the board was able to trim the project down to about $8 million, Sunnyvale began to make it known that it was considering other options, such as developing a contract with the Palo Alto Humane Society. Sunnyvale could also contract with the Humane Society of Santa Clara Valley, which has recently purchased a new 4-acre site and has said it would be open to continuing to provide animal shelter services to the cities.

Sunnyvale could also contract with the city of Fremont for services.

Sunnyvale is the only member of the authority that does not use it for field services, instead handling those services within its own public safety department. The authority's animal shelter services continue to be provided by the Humane Society of Santa Clara Valley.

The authority's member cities were asked to commit to providing their portions of the money by the board's Sept. 30 meeting. Saratoga did so, with the council on Sept. 18 approving the appropriation of $710,000 to cover its percentage as well as a 10 percent contingency. All the other cities did so as well, except for Sunnyvale.

At the board meeting, Sunnyvale asked for, and received, an extension until the board's next meeting, Oct. 28. It also asked for, and didn't receive, a letter from the board to the Humane Society asking for information about the services it provides, information Sunnyvale hasn't been able to get on its own.

Sunnyvale's concerns have been raising concerns among the other authority members, not only about how they could continue without Sunnyvale, but also about whether the cost of the project is escalating beyond what is cost-effective. The board also agreed Sept. 30 to hire an outside consultant, at no more than $10,000, to review the costs for the building, the costs of providing animal services and also the way the cities' allocations are computed to make sure the authority has the most streamlined plan possible.

Bogosian said he believes the new shelter—which would be located on a lot in Santa Clara not far from the Humane Society, and where it would have a long-term lease from the city of Santa Clara—is still the best option for the entire group, with or without Sunnyvale. But he is sympathetic to Sunnyvale's concerns.

"I respect that, but I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions," he said of Sunnyvale's position. "I'm disappointed—I'm concerned about how we can make this work."

If Sunnyvale does pull out of the agreement, Bogosian said, the authority would be faced with a number of options. It could continue its plans to build a shelter for the remaining six cities. Bogosian said he believes the shelter could be scaled back in terms of size and number of animals and personnel involved, so as to keep the projected costs the same for the remaining cities, without Sunnyvale's $2.6 million.

"I would certainly like to revisit a downsized shelter," he said. "I am not prepared to go back to the city council to ask for more money. I believe all this can be done."

While that option is Bogosian's top choice, the authority could also contract as a group with another shelter, like the Humane Society. The problem with that, he said, is that the society has yet to build its new shelter and the fees that could be requested of the contracting cities are unpredictable, as they would be based on how much the construction of that new shelter would cost the society.

It could also purchase the existing Humane Society location, which the society is eager to sell, he said, remodel it and either have the society continue to operate it or operate it themselves.

The last resort, Bogosian said, would be for the authority to break up and each city to negotiate an individual contract with another shelter. That would be less of an economic choice, though, he said, as individual cities would have less authority and bargaining power than a six-city group.

Those options won't be considered unless Sunnyvale does pull out of the agreement Oct. 28. Authority general manager Biggs said she is already trying to pull together options to present to the board at that time in that eventuality. But Bogosian is optimistic that, whatever happens, the authority will continue and Saratoga will get a good deal for animal control services.

"I would not say this is the end of the world by any means," he said.