Sunnyvale had requested at the authority's Oct. 28 board meeting to have up until the end of the year to decide its fate. But the board changes at the beginning of every year, said Saratoga City Councilman Stan Bogosian, and board members wanted to know of Sunnyvale's status before that happened. Therefore, the SVACA board gave Sunnyvale until Dec. 19 to announce its decision.

"If it chooses to go with Palo Alto, there shouldn't be a problem by then for Sunnyvale to get all the paperwork," Bogosian said.

Even without the Dec. 19 deadline, contractual agreements mandate that Sunnyvale notify SVACA of its status by Dec. 31 or else it will automatically be reenrolled to participate in the authority for one more year, said Sunnyvale Councilman Tim Risch.

The SVACA came out of a 2000 joint powers agreement between Saratoga, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Campbell, Cupertino, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale, wherein each city would contribute a percentage of the cost of building a 24,588-square-foot shelter.

The formula used to determine what percentage each city would contribute is based on human population, the number of licensed animals in the city and the number of days animals are kept at the shelter, according to Authority General Manager Deborah Biggs. Under this formula, Sunnyvale would contribute the highest percentage (32.41 percent) to administrative and shelter site cost, and Saratoga the second lowest (7.99 percent). Biggs noted that Sunnyvale is not asked to contribute to the cost of field operations, since the city does not call on SVACA for that service.

Nevertheless, Risch said, the formula for determining city costs does not accurately reflect who uses the facility the most often. According to Biggs, from July 1, 2001, to June 30, 2002, the authority took in 1,172 stray animals from Sunnyvale, while 2,067 animals came from Santa Clara. Saratoga, which is to pay the second-lowest amount, also saw the second-lowest number of animals brought in (205).

"We want a system that's fair and that represents who's using the service," Risch said.

Early estimates in 2000 showed the cost of the shelter construction at $6.5 million. But when the board received news this past summer that the project could cost more than $10 million, Sunnyvale decided it needed to reconsider its participation in the project and began talking about possibly contracting with the Palo Alto Humane Society.

"Clearly we find SVACA an organization that we would like to participate in. If it can provide the best value for our residents' money, we'll be more than happy to participate," Risch said.

But should Sunnyvale take its business elsewhere, Bogosian said, the remaining six cities would have to regroup and consider a smaller facility than the one originally proposed. Options that SVACA is considering include downsizing the shelter, contracting as a group with the Humane Society, purchasing an existing facility and operating it itself or breaking up the authority and having each city negotiate individual contracts with other shelters. Bogosian said that he would prefer the authority build its own shelter so that it can maintain control over operating costs in the long term.

"The sense I have is that the board is committed to operating a shelter" rather than contracting with another agency, Bogosian said.

While Sunnyvale has a month left to make up its mind, the board has directed Biggs to look for property to convert into a shelter in the meantime—a move the authority would most likely make even if Sunnyvale's future involvement with the group was not an issue.

"There's a high vacancy rate in the valley, and, as such, it's a very favorable buyer market," Bogosian said.

As of Nov. 12, Biggs said she had visited in excess of 60 properties, out of which she would only seriously consider four or five for SVACA. She said she is looking for land with an existing building that measures a minimum of 24,000 square feet.

"At this point, we're only looking, getting a feel for what's out there. What was available a year ago when we looked is not what's available now. Now all sorts of property is available. It's a full realization of what's been going on with the economy," she said, referring to the high vacancy rate resulting from businesses folding.

Biggs maintains that the authority's originally planned site on Reed Street in Santa Clara remains the most viable option. However, the authority is considering other options because it received word from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) that in several years the VTA plans to build a new facility near the proposed animal shelter. If so, Biggs said, VTA would need 28 percent of the property the animal control authority wishes to build on as a right of way to test tracks for a new BART station. A representative from the VTA is scheduled to appear before the animal control authority's board at its Nov. 25 meeting at 6 p.m.