Although SVACA's increased cost estimates for its new shelter caused Sunnyvale to consider alternative plans offered by the city of Palo Alto, the city of Fremont and the Humane Society of Santa Clara Valley, staying on with the Joint Powers Authority agreement signed by the SVACA board is definitely still an option, according to Robert LaSala, city manager of Sunnyvale.

On Dec. 3, the city/town managers and staff of SVACA's seven member cities—Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Santa Clara, Campbell, Los Gatos, Saratoga and Monte Sereno—held a meeting to discuss the outcome of an "independent financial analysis" conducted by the cities of Sunnyvale and Cupertino and the town of Los Gatos.

"We took a look at what other cities (and agencies) were doing," LaSala explained.

The analysis revealed that SVACA's projected animal services and shelter costs would be 94 percent higher than what the neighboring cities and agencies offer, according to Carol Atwood, director of administrative services for Cupertino.

"The average cost offered by Palo Alto, Fremont and the Humane Society is $135 per animal, whereas SVACA's projected cost is at $262 per animal," Atwood said at the Dec. 19 SVACA board meeting. "It's very hard to convince our constituents and our council with such high numbers."

These increased estimated costs have Sunnyvale and other member cities considering a withdrawal from the Joint Powers Authority, which was signed on July 20, 2000. However, city managers feel that more in-depth reviews of the operational and fiscal issues are warranted before making such a decision, according to LaSala.

"All the cities felt that it would be prudent to take more time," LaSala said. "Sunnyvale city staff would like to see SVACA review its costs."

Debra Figone, town manager for Los Gatos, agreed.

"My recommendation to my council so far is to hang in there and try to reach some satisfactory numbers," Figone said.

On Dec. 10, the SVACA board convened a special meeting and unanimously approved a proposed amendment to the Joint Powers Authority that would revise the cities' withdrawal provisions. The amendment would allow the cities a 90-day extension from the previous deadline of Dec. 31, 2002, for this year only. The amendment also gives cities authority to withdraw from the Joint Powers Authority with just a 90-day notice to SVACA.

Much of SVACA's projected costs stem from the board's mission statement, which ensures a high level of service, longer operating hours than other shelters and a high-end facility, Atwood said. She added that the member cities decided it might be worthwhile to take a step back and revise some of the original goals and numbers, possibly by scaling back some of their services.

Some board members shared these sentiments at the Dec. 19 meeting.

"We need to revisit the level of service we want," said Tim Risch, vice mayor of Sunnyvale and a SVACA board member.

He added that it's important to look at what the competing agencies and other cities are doing to keep their costs low.

The SVACA board signed the Joint Powers Authority in July 2000, after the Humane Society expressed a desire to discontinue animal services to the cities due to increased numbers of animals from San Jose. SVACA decided to build its own 24,588-square-foot animal shelter and located a 1.72-acre site at 888 Reed St. in Santa Clara. However, problems have surfaced regarding the viability of the site.

The Humane Society could become a viable option again for SVACA, Risch said at the meeting. Although a proposal for long-term animal services by SVACA was denied by the Humane Society two years ago, its conditions might have changed since.

The Humane Society houses about 31,000 animals every year, according to Atwood. However, because San Jose's new animal shelter is now fully operational, that number would drop to approximately 15,600 animals every year, she said. The reduction in animal numbers could free up more space for other cities, she explained.

Stan Bogosian, SVACA chairman and a councilman from Saratoga, moved that the organization approach the Humane Society once again about long-term services—for at least 20 or 30 years.

Although this time board members unanimously approved Bogosian's motion, other issues have not been dealt with so smoothly in the past.

Ever since LaSala received information on increased projected shelter and service costs from SVACA in September, the city of Sunnyvale has been considering other options. Since Sunnyvale would contribute a large proportion of the costs, other cities would have to pay a considerably larger share if Sunnyvale decided to pull out. Their operational costs would also increase dramatically without Sunnyvale's portion. The possibility has caused some resentment among other cities.

"We have not been a board working together for some time now," said Jane Kennedy, a councilwoman from Campbell, at the Dec. 19 meeting. "Why did the three cities do this independent study? We have seven cities that have made a commitment—we've signed an agreement."

Atwood, a member of the SVACA Technical Advisory Committee, responded that the three cities volunteered to do the financial analysis to review all the numbers.

Fred Fowler, a councilman from Sunnyvale and vice chairman of the SVACA board, said better solutions could be found working as a team than working independently.

Although Risch suggested the SVACA board revisit the service goals on a parallel path, Bogosian advised that the organization wait for the Humane Society's response before going ahead with other options.