Cathedral City staff recommend keeping part-time Riverside County animal services; council asks for six-month data review

Cathedral City officials reviewed a proposed three‑year contract with the Riverside County Department of Animal Services and recommended keeping the city’s current part‑time field and shelter services while the city collects more operational data.

The presentation by Commander Hanley said the proposed contract would run from July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2028, and staff compared continuing the existing part‑time field service level with a full‑time option. Hanley told the council that Cathedral City has contracted with Riverside County for animal services since fiscal year 2004–05 and that the city has been on a part‑time staffing model since May 2020.

The fiscal comparison showed sizable differences between the options. Staff presented a three‑year total of $2,125,350 for the full‑time field and shelter option and $1,654,279 for the part‑time option. For the first year (fiscal 2025–26) staff showed a projected cost of $607,320 for full‑time field and shelter services versus $467,340 for the part‑time option; staff said those totals do not include unpredictable after‑hours overtime costs. Hanley also provided historical payments to Riverside County: $321,575.12 (FY22–23), $302,843.75 (FY23–24) and $446,848.29 (FY24–25).

Hanley and other staff outlined operational differences: the current part‑time field unit covers Monday–Friday, 8 a.m.–12 p.m.; a full‑time field unit would be staffed Monday–Friday, 8 a.m.–5 p.m. Neither option covers nights, weekends, or holidays without after‑hours call‑out pay. Hanley said after‑hours responses for the city numbered 81, 90 and 95 in the last three fiscal years, respectively; total calls for service for the city were 1,470, 1,608 and 1,600 across those same years.

Council members asked for detail about when after‑hours calls occur. Hanley said a review of after‑hours call‑out sheets showed only four calls between 12 p.m. and 5 p.m. in the last fiscal year; the remainder occurred evenings, weekends or holidays. Police and council members also discussed what field officers do when not responding to calls, whether additional community outreach and education would be possible with full‑time staffing, and the feasibility and cost of creating a city‑run shelter modeled on neighboring agencies.

Finance staff (Kevin Biersack) and the council discussed budget impacts. Hanley and Biersack said the city had budgeted assumptions that included a 20% anticipated increase in the animal contract; staff told the council that, under current budgeted amounts, selecting the part‑time option would exceed the current year budget by roughly $72,000 and the full‑time option by about $219,000 for FY2025–26. For FY2026–27 staff said the city had budgeted $414,540; under that baseline the part‑time option would be about $147,000 over budget and the full‑time option about $305,000 over.

The proposed contract documents include operational and contract clauses the council discussed. Commander Hanley pointed to Section 5, which allows the city to change service levels by notifying Riverside County, and Section 9, which provides that either party may terminate the agreement without cause with six months’ advance notice.

No formal vote was taken. After discussion the council directed staff to move forward with bringing back a part‑time contract for approval, prepare a budget amendment for the next meeting to cover the part‑time option, and have the police department and animal services develop additional operational data for a study session in about six to seven months so the council can reassess service levels. Councilmembers emphasized they want continued monitoring and that the city remain open to alternatives such as a joint powers authority, a nonprofit shelter partner, or eventually a city‑run shelter should fiscal and operational conditions warrant it.

Public comment on the item was not received at the meeting.