City of Darebin and City of Moreland Animal Shelter Feasibility Study

APPENDIX A

Prepared for

Darebin City Council and

Moreland City Council

Essential Economics Pty Ltd and Sweett (Australia) Pty Ltd

April 2015

Authorship

Report stage Author Date Review Date John Noronha Draft report 31 March 2015 John Henshall 1 April 2015 Andrew Sells John Noronha Revised draft report 8 April 2015 Andrew Sells Final draft report John Noronha 13 April 2015 Final report John Noronha 23 April 2015

Disclaimer

Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the material and the integrity of the analysis presented herein, Essential Economics Pty Ltd accepts no liability for any actions taken on the basis of the contents of this report.

The information in this report has been prepared specifically for the stated client. This document should not be used or replicated in any way by any other party without first receiving written consent from Essential Economics Pty Ltd.

Contact details

For further details please contact Essential Economics Pty Ltd at one of our offices:

96 Pelham Street Level 26 / 44 Market Street Carlton Sydney Victoria 3053 New South Wales 2000 Australia Australia PH +61 3 9347 5255 PH +61 2 9089 8654 FAX +61 3 9347 5355

EMAIL [email protected] WEB www.essentialeconomics.com

ABN 92 079 850 427

Our Reference: 15003

Contents Executive Summary ...... 3 Introduction ...... 5 1 Methodology ...... 7 2 Background and Research Findings ...... 8 2.1 Existing Situation ...... 8 2.2 Policy Context...... 8 2.3 Victorian Models ...... 11 2.4 Animal Welfare Facility Business Case, City of Whittlesea ...... 14 2.5 Conclusions ...... 16 3 Service Needs and Demand for Animal Welfare Services ...... 17 3.1 Demand Analysis ...... 17 3.2 Estimated Long-Term Domestic Animal Pen Requirements ...... 20 3.3 Indicative Land and Building Requirements ...... 21 3.4 Conclusions ...... 25 4 Issues and Key Findings ...... 27 4.1 Consultation Process ...... 27 4.2 Key Objectives ...... 27 4.3 Core Components of an Animal Welfare Facility ...... 28 4.4 Additional / Value-Added Services ...... 29 4.5 Site Location Considerations ...... 30 4.6 Local (Single Council) versus Regional Model (Multiple Councils) ...... 30 4.7 Role for Animal Rescue Groups and Other Organisations ...... 30 4.8 Operational/Management Options...... 31 4.9 Conclusions ...... 32 5 Assessment of Site Options ...... 34 5.1 City of Darebin Site Options ...... 34 5.2 City of Moreland Site Options ...... 38 5.3 Whittlesea Regional Animal Welfare Facility, Epping ...... 41 5.4 Recommended Candidate Options ...... 43 6 Evaluation of Candidate Options ...... 44 6.1 Candidate Site Options ...... 44 6.2 Economic Assessment ...... 45 6.3 Evaluation Framework ...... 48 6.4 Options Evaluation ...... 49 6.5 Preferred Option ...... 49 7 Operational and Management Considerations ...... 50 7.1 Operational Service and Management Model Options ...... 50 7.2 Financial Contributions ...... 52 7.3 Conclusions ...... 53 8 Key Findings and Recommendations ...... 54 Appendicies ...... 58 A. Stakeholders Consulted ...... 58 B. Darebin Sites Located on Public Use Zoned Land ...... 59

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Darebin City Council, in conjunction with Moreland City Council, are currently exploring the feasibility of setting up a local animal shelter , which could include potentially joining the City of Whittlesea in the development of a regional animal shelter to be constructed at Epping. Essential Economics Pty Ltd and Sweett (Australia) Pty Ltd have been commissioned to undertake this Animal Shelter Feasibility Study to assist in determining the most appropriate option.

The key findings of this study are:

1 Strong demand is projected for animal welfare services in both Municipalities over the coming decade driven by factors such as population and household growth, increased domestic animal registrations and a community desire to significantly reduce euthanasia rates for dogs and cats.

2 Over the period 2016 to 2026, the following requirements have been identified: City of Darebin:  50 domestic animal pens (2016) increasing to 59 domestic animal pens (2026)  Building space 570m2  Outdoor space 2,215m2  Site requirement, approximately 0.3ha City of Moreland:  50 domestic animal pens (2016) increasing to 94 domestic animal pens (2026)  Building space 800m2  Outdoor space 2,665m2  Site requirement, approximately 0.35ha

3 An assessment of site options identified the following:  The existing City of Darebin Day Stay Animal Holding Facility at Reservoir is inappropriate to accommodate an animal welfare facility, principally due to size restrictions but also with regard to interface issues with residential properties.  Moreland Council’s 48-54 South Street, Hadfield site could potentially accommodate the integrated needs of the Municipalities of Darebin and Moreland.  Whittlesea Council’s 490 Cooper Street, Epping site could potentially accommodate the integrated needs of the Municipalities of Whittlesea, Darebin and Moreland.

4 An evaluation of the Hadfield Site – Darebin/Moreland Option and the Regional Animal Welfare Facility, Epping Option was undertaken against the following weighted criteria:

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

 Facility satisfies Council’s operational / service requirements  Economic impacts  Social and community impacts and benefits  Regulatory/strategic policy compliance

The existing Darebin Day Stay Animal Holding Facility was evaluated as a ‘Do Nothing’ Option.

5 The evaluation results, which are presented in Table A, clearly show the proposed Regional Animal Welfare Facility, Epping Option should be the preferred option for both Darebin and Moreland Councils to pursue.

Table A: City of Darebin and City of Moreland Animal Feasibility Study – Options Evaluation Assessment

Facility Satisfies Economic Social / Regulatory / Total Council’s Operational / Impacts Community Strategic Policy Service Requirements Impacts and compliance Benefits Do-Nothing Option Score 5 4 4 5 18 Weighting 25% 35% 15% 25% 100% Total 1.25 1.40 0.60 1.25 4.5 Hadfield Site – Darebin/Moreland Option Score 9 3 9 10 31 Weighting 25% 35% 15% 25% 100% Total 2.25 0.90 1.35 2.50 7.00 Regional Animal Welfare Facility, Epping Option Score 10 9 7 10 36 Weighting 25% 35% 25% 25% 100%

Total 2.5 3.15 1.05 2.50 9.20 Source: Essential Economics Pty Ltd and Sweett (Australia) Pty Ltd

6 With regard to operational and management considerations, the following are noted:  outsourcing of services is likely to provide the greatest benefits to each Council in terms of service levels and cost.  shared services arrangements may provide significant cost savings to Councils and should be explored further as part of the proposed Regional Model.  Under the proposed Regional Model, operational financial contributions should be based on usage levels, management responsibilities and occupation of the facility. Indicative financial apportionments (in percentage terms) are: - City of Whittlesea (60%), - City of Moreland (25%), and - City of Darebin (15%).

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

INTRODUCTION

Background

Darebin City Council, in conjunction with Moreland City Council, are currently exploring the feasibility of setting up a local animal shelter in the region, which could include potentially joining the City of Whittlesea in the development of a regional animal shelter to be constructed at Epping.

The City of Darebin currently has a short-stay holding facility, but neither the City of Darebin nor the City of Moreland have animal shelters to look after abandoned animals on a longer- term basis. Such animals are transported to registered pound and shelter facilities located outside these Municipalities. Both Councils are also targeting a significant reduction in euthanasia rates for unwanted and stray animals. The consequences of these existing arrangements may mean animals are less accessible and lack coordination with volunteers and local rescue groups. The existing arrangement may also contribute to higher euthanasia rates.

At its meeting on 3 February 2014, Darebin Council made a commitment to commissioning a feasibility study / business case to set up a local animal shelter, possibly in partnership with neighbouring councils, as part of the 2014/2015 Council budget. On 9 April 2014 Moreland Council passed a similar resolution to evaluate the potential to establish and contribute funding to a local animal shelter with Darebin and other local Councils.

The City of Whittlesea is currently developing a new Animal Welfare Shelter at 490 Cooper Street, Epping. As noted, this facility has the potential to be developed with an expanded capacity to cater for the needs of all three Municipalities and is one option which will be considered in the feasibility study. Other options include identifying appropriate sites in Darebin and Moreland capable of accommodating an animal shelter and delivering the required service levels to meet identified demand for the two Municipalities.

In line with the Project Specification, any new facility will need to be capable of providing a range of services, including collection and intake of lost and stray animals, care for animals, return to owner services, and generally providing care for animals in accordance with the Domestic Animals Act 1994, relevant regulations and the Code of Practice for the Management of Dogs and Cats in Shelters and Pounds. Value-added opportunities may be possible, including integration of veterinary and other business operators as part of the facility which would improve the service package and potentially leverage revenues to offset development and operational costs.

In view of this background, the feasibility study will need to identify best practice in the operation of animal pound and shelter services, highlight animal management practices adopted in other shelters, evaluate existing and potential site options, confirm appropriate scale and site requirements for the facility, recommend appropriate operational models and governance structures and highlight overall costs and revenues.

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

Objective

“To produce a concise report, which establishes the feasibility and economic analysis for a local animal shelter under various service models and considers partnership with neighbouring Councils”.

This Report

This report contains the following chapters:

Chapter 1: Methodology – outlines the key tasks undertaken as part of this feasibility study.

Chapter 2: Background and Research Findings – Describes the policy context for the study, an overview of operational models in other locations, and a summary of the Business Case for the proposed Whittlesea Animal Welfare Facility.

Chapter 3: Service Needs and Demand for Animal Welfare services – Provides a supply and demand assessment of animal welfare services for Darebin and Moreland and associated building and land requirements.

Chapter 4: Issues and Key Findings – Presents a summary of findings from the consultation process with Councils and with key industry stakeholders.

Chapter 5: Assessment of Site Options – Explores potential site options in each Municipality, including depots and other Council owned assets. One candidate site in each of Darebin and Moreland is identified for detailed evaluation.

Chapter 6: Evaluation of Candidate Sites – Assesses the candidate sites, which also includes an expanded regional facility at Whittlesea in terms of regulatory compliance, site constraints, service levels, customer service, accessibility, and financial implications. A preferred site is recommended.

Chapter 7: Operational and Management Considerations – Identifies operational and management options for the preferred facility, as well as financial contributions expected from each participating Council.

Chapter 8: Key Findings and Recommendations – Presents the key finding and recommendation arising from the study.

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

1 METHODOLOGY

The following methodology has been applied to this Feasibility Study:

1 Assessment of best practice models operating in other Municipalities.

2 Analysis of demand drivers, including population trends, domestic animal registration trends, animal impoundment trends and euthanasia rates.

3 Preparation of estimated long-term floorspace and land requirements for new Darebin and Moreland stand-alone facilities and for an integrated Darebin/Moreland facility.

4 Review of findings from consultation with councils and key stakeholders.

5 Analysis of potential site options in each Municipality, including council-owned land and commercial land.

6 Identification of candidate sites for detailed evaluation.

7 Development of evaluation criteria to assess candidate sites.

8 Evaluation of candidate site and selection of preferred site.

9 Exploration of potential operational and management approaches for the preferred option, and financial contributions for each participating Council.

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

2 BACKGROUND AND RESEA RCH FINDINGS

2.1 Existing Situation

The Municipalities of Darebin and Moreland do not currently have access to a local Animal Welfare Facility. However, both Councils have an agreement with a service provider (the Lost Dogs Home [LDH] in North Melbourne) to provide animal management services.

Darebin Council currently has a day-stay animal holding facility which is used to contain animals before being transported to a registered Domestic Animal Business – Pound and Shelter. The day-stay holding facility is located at Council’s Depot in Carawa Drive, Reservoir. Darebin Council does not have animal pound facilities, and all pound services, seized animals and afterhours animal collections are being managed by the LDH. The existing service provider facilities are not based in the local community. The current scope of Moreland City Council animal management is the same as Darebin, but without a day-stay holding facility to contain animals before being transported to the LDH.

Once domestic animals are found in the City of Darebin, they are placed in a holding cell at their Council depot and kept for a maximum of 24 hours. If the animals are not retrieved by their owners in that time, they are transferred to the LDH facility in North Melbourne. The City of Darebin has very limited resources and only contains several animal pens at their Council depot, which is inadequate to meet animal welfare guidelines as a pound or shelter. The use of the Council depot pens requires double-handling of the animals, which can be costly and stressful for the animal.

The scope of the animal management service includes collection and intake of contained lost and stray animals, care for animals, return to owner services and generally providing care for animals in accordance with the Domestic Animals Act 1994, relevant regulations and the Code of Practice for the Management of Dogs and Cats in Shelters and Pounds.

2.2 Policy Context

Pets are increasingly kept for companionship, both in families and sole person households, and Councils actively seek new and innovative ways to support owners and to encourage and promote the health and social benefits of responsible pet ownership.

This Feasibility Study has been prepared having regard to the following policy and strategy linkages:

Darebin’s Domestic Animal Management Plan 2013-17

The 2013-17 Darebin Domestic Animal Management Plan aims to guide Council and the community towards the goal of responsible animal ownership and management.

Darebin’s Plan has been developed in accordance with State Government requirements, as outlined in Section 68A of the Domestic Animals Act 1994. The Plan continues to build on

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

the foundation of work undertaken by Council with the inaugural 2008-2012 Animal Management Strategy.

The Plan was developed by Council through extensive consultation with the community and industry stakeholders and this included the development of an external reference group (Darebin Domestic Animal Management Reference Group).

The key objectives of the Plan are to:

 ensure Local Laws Investigations Officers are appropriately trained

 encourage responsible dog and cat ownership

 reduce nuisance caused by dogs and cats

 promote effective management of dogs and cats

 identify dangerous, menacing and restricted breed dogs in the Municipality and ensure they are kept in accordance with the Act and the Regulations

 minimise the risk of attacks by dogs

 address over-population and high euthanasia rates for dogs and cats.

Moreland’s Domestic Animal Management Plan 2013-17

The 2013-17 Moreland Domestic Animal Management Plan has been prepared in line with the Domestic Animals Act 1994, which requires a new Plan every four years and with an annual review throughout the life of the Plan.

This Plan was developed with the assistance of a reference group, with members representing a wide spectrum of views and levels of involvement in relation to animals in Moreland.

The key objectives of the Plan are to:

 promote responsible pet ownership in Moreland

 respond to issues raised by the community about nuisance animals (e.g. barking dogs)

 enforce the legislation relating to animals

 encourage the registration of companion animals

 educate the community on topics related to animal management and control.

An action plan has also been developed to guide the implementation of the Plan over the next four years; this contains a range of projects, some of which will require funding through Council’s annual budget process.

Whittlesea’s Domestic Animal Management Plan 2013-17

The Whittlesea Domestic Animal Management Plan 2013-17 was prepared by Council in line with the requirements of the Domestic Animals Act 1994.

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

The key objectives of the Plan are to:

 provide advice to the community on domestic animal matters and promoting responsible pet ownership

 investigate nuisance animal complaints and dog attacks

 attend to customer complaints

 manage Council’s domestic animal collection and pound services contracts

 maintain a domestic animal register and undertaking registration checks

 impound wandering, unwanted or un-owned dogs and cats

 administer and control of dangerous and restricted breed dogs and the register

 provide a 24-hour a day after-hours emergency service

 undertake registration and inspection of domestic animal businesses

 undertake administration and inspection of excess animal permits.

Specific actions are identified in the Plan relating to training of authorised officers, registration and identification of animals, nuisances and dog attacks, overpopulation and high euthanasia rates, and domestic animal businesses.

Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (DEDJTR) Code of Practice for the Management of Dogs and Cats in Shelters and Pounds (2011)

The purpose of the DEDJTR Code of Practice is to specify the minimum standards of accommodation, management and care that are appropriate to the physical and behavioural needs of dogs and cats housed in establishments operating as an animal shelter or Council pound.

The Code of Practice is designed to cover all animal shelters and Council pounds, and includes any holding facilities used by these establishments. Holding facilities for the short-term housing of animals prior to transportation to an establishment must comply with this Code of Practice. Specific conditions for legislative purposes apply to the long-term housing of dogs seized and held.

The Code of Practice is to be observed by the proprietor, operations manager and all other staff of an establishment. All establishments must comply with state and local government legislation and permits.

The Code of Practice outlines specific legislative requirements for the following:

 Staff (including staff health) – which includes the proprietor, operations manager, animal attendants, veterinary practitioner, vehicle driver, and foster-carers.

 Handling, treatment and care of animals, including:

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

- handling, admissions, vaccinations, quarantine, isolation, euthanasia, or removal of animal from the premises - care – including nutrition, disinfection and hygiene, inspection, enrichment, exercise and socialisation - foster care – including juvenile foster care, veterinary rehabilitation foster care, behavioural rehabilitation foster care and short-term relief foster care - responsible pet ownership - re-homing - returning long-term seized dogs - public access to establishments

 Transport vehicles and housing animals, including: - Council, Council-contracted and establishment vehicles used for the transport of animals - animal housing, including temperature, humidity, design ,minimum cage and pen size, examination and treatment areas

 Records – including guidelines relating to the proprietor’s reporting requirements for: - animals handed in by their owners or owner's agent - animals seized under the Domestic Animals Act 1994 - animals in foster care - fate of animal – including recovery by owner, re-homing or euthanasia

2.3 Victorian Models

To appreciate the scope and identify best practice in the operation of animal pound and shelter services, research into animal management practices adopted in other Municipalities in Victoria has been undertaken. The key components of these facilities and best practice implications are noted below.

The Lost Dogs Home

The Lost Dogs Home (LDH), located in North Melbourne, is currently the largest provider of animal welfare services in Victoria and is Australia’s largest shelter. The LDH provides an extensive range of services, including:

 animal management and pound services for local governments throughout Australia

 shelter and adoption service for cats and dogs

 National Pet Register – free pet ID tags, reduced-cost microchipping services and 24- hour 7-day recovery call centre

 Pet Licence – responsible pet ownership education

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

 behaviour modification program

 volunteer and work experience programs

 Foster care program

 acceptance of unwanted dogs and cats for rehousing where possible

 Veterinary clinic for the general public

 trapping and collection service for stray and feral cats

 lost and found information service

 Dog hydrobathing service

 24-hour 7-day a week ambulance service

 a broad range of animal control services

 school talks on responsible pet ownership

 training in animal control.

The LDH caters for approximately 30,000 cats and dogs each year and is the main contractor to many councils in metropolitan Melbourne.

The Municipalities of Darebin, Moreland and Whittlesea all outsource services through contract arrangements with the LDH and the RSPCA (animal pound, animal collection or both).

RSPCA Shelters

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) is Australia’s longest serving animal welfare organisation, with approximately 130,000 animals accommodated in 40 animal shelters and adoption centres across the country in 2013/14. In Victoria, approximately 28,000 animals are cared for at the RSPCA’s eleven metropolitan and regional shelters.

In addition to accommodating and caring for animals in the organisation’s shelters, the RSPCA also provides the following services:

 Promotion of animals available for adoption through www.adoptapet.com.au, social media, local events and traditional media.

 Increasing community awareness and support for adopting animals from shelters and rescue groups through programs and special initiatives.

 Working with rescue groups to extend the reach of adoption initiatives.

 Providing services to reunite lost pets with their owners.

 Providing community and shelter-based de-sexing schemes.

 Foster care networks.

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

 Dedicated behavioural trainers providing behavioural modification and management plans for animals requiring specialist support.

 Clinical veterinary care, including isolation facilities and processes, in-shelter disease management and surgical rehabilitation.

 Adoption follow-up with new owners to ensure pets are settling into their new homes and owners are provided with additional information and referral to appropriate telephone or on-site support services.

The City of Whittlesea currently has a contract agreement with the RSPCA for Animal Pound services.

Geelong Animal Pound

The Geelong Animal Pound is operated by the Geelong Animal Welfare Society (GAWS) and is the only facility of its type operating in Greater Geelong. The facility accommodates and cares for approximately 6,000 animals per year, based on 2013/14 data.

The facility is funded by a mix of revenue streams, including council contributions, boarding and shelter fees, veterinary fees, retail revenue and public donations.

In addition to accommodating and caring for animals, the GAWS facility provides the following services:

 community vet clinic

 pet products and merchandise

 Foster care program

 animal adoptions

 dog training

In recent years GAWS has operated under a ‘No Kill’ philosophy, and is estimated to be saving approximately 90% of dogs and 70% of cats that pass through its doors.

Stonnington Animal Pound and Shelter

The Stonnington Animal Shelter is operated by Save a Dog Scheme (SADS). SADS currently has contract arrangements with the Municipalities of Boorondara and Stonnington.

The facility is owned by Stonnington City Council and opened in 2006. In 2012, Council provided funds to upgrade the facility, which included increasing capacity levels, especially in response to increased demand levels for cats. The facility now has capacity for approximately 50 dogs and 110 cats.

The facility functions as a ‘No Kill’ shelter and aims to resettle up to 90% of dogs and cats, which is generally regarded as the best achievable outcome, given that about 10% are dangerous breeds, sick, injured, aggressive or feral.

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

SADS have purchased a 13.5ha property at Yarrambat in Melbourne’s northern suburbs in order to create an animal shelter for 210 dogs and 50 cats. Once operational, the Yarrambat facility will work in addition to, and in conjunction with, the Stonington Animal Pound and Shelter.

2.4 Animal Welfare Facility Business Case, City of Whittlesea

The Business Case includes service needs analysis, policy and strategic linkages, project scope, options analysis, recommended option and implementation strategy.

The options considered were:

Option Do Nothing: Base Case

Option 1: Provision of new facilities at 335A O’Herns Road, Epping (location of existing Council animal pound services)

Option 2: Building of a new facility at 490 Cooper Street, Epping

Option 3: Building of a new facility on a Greenfield Site

The Business Case concludes that construction of a new facility on Council-owned land at 490 Cooper Street, Epping delivers the best outcome. This option has the following key benefits and advantages:

 It rates highest against the adopted options evaluation criteria (ie service requirements, economic impacts, social/community impacts and benefits, regulatory/strategic policy compliance).

 It has the lowest overall capital cost of the three options assessed at $10.9 million.

 The land at 490 Cooper Street, Epping is owned by Council, with no additional land acquisition costs required. Council has already undertaken a range of subdivision and site preparation works at the site for the purpose of servicing an animal welfare facility.

 The location of site at 490 Cooper Street in Epping is readily accessible to the Whittlesea community and to the wider northern region of Melbourne.

 The site enables the provision of purpose-built facilities that will allow Council to meet obligations under the ‘Code of Practice’ (2011) and realise its corporate and community objectives.

 The site is located in an industrial area adjoining a recycling facility, with likely minimal amenity impacts on adjoining landowners.

 Two adjoining industrial lots owned by Council could be divested with an approximate revenue of $2 million (m) to offset the capital cost of the new facility, resulting in a total capital investment of $8.9m after land sales (including costs to date).

 Provides the optimum value for money over the life of the facility (50 Years)

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

In the context of this Feasibility Study, it is noted the 490 Cooper Street site has been designed to cater for an expansion of services that could potentially also accommodate the needs of the City of Darebin and the City of Moreland as part of a Regional Animal Welfare facility. This proposed large-scale facility would be developed in stages, with the capacity to accommodate 250 pens (100 canine and 150 felines) and with the ability to provide additional pens and services over the longer-term if required.

The Regional Animal Welfare facility is one of the candidate options assessed later in this report. As described in the Regional Animal Welfare Facility Business Case written for a funding application for the National Stronger Regions Funding Program (Federal Government) in November 2014, the benefits of a Regional Facility are as follows:

The potential partnership between the City of Whittlesea, the City of Darebin and the City of Moreland presents a major opportunity for cost efficiencies for the three Councils. The opportunity to share the initial capital investment costs, as well as long term annual operational costs will create cost efficiencies for the three Local Government Areas and reduced cost to residents and pet owners.

The preferred option of building a new Regional Animal Welfare Facility at 490 Cooper Street, Epping has an estimated construction cost of approximately $13 million. In addition, $2.7 million has been spent to date by the City of Whittlesea on subdivision and site preparation works.

The current cost to the City of Whittlesea for the operation of the existing Animal Welfare Facility is approximately $130,000 per annum, which includes the cost of staff, supporting veterinary costs and building operating costs. The cost of outsourcing the animal management services to the Lost Dogs Home by the City of Darebin and the City of Moreland are approximately $250,000 for each Council. The total cost of animal management of all three Councils equates to approximately $630,000. The estimated cost of providing animal management services at the new Regional Animal Welfare Facility is estimated at approximately $250,000 per annum which is a saving of $380,000 due to economies of scale and regionalisation.

Regionalisation will also allow the City of Whittlesea, the City of Darebin and the City of Moreland to have a facility located locally (490 Cooper Street, Epping), which is easily accessible via the Hume Freeway. The centralisation of the facility will significantly reduce travel time for rangers and pet owners as well as cost.

Travel times will be reduced from areas within the Municipality, more notably in the northern areas. For example, it takes 14 minutes to travel from Reservoir to 490 Cooper Street Epping, compared to 25 minutes to the Lost Dogs Home in North Melbourne. The central location and ease of access via main roads and freeways will result in major travel efficiencies for residents (pet owners) and rangers as well as reduced greenhouse emissions from cars. It should be noted that the preferred travel route to the Lost

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

Dogs Home is usually via CityLink which includes additional costs in the way of tollways.

Source: Regional Animal Welfare Facility Business Case, November 2014, pp. 23-24

2.5 Conclusions

The key implications of this research into current best practice models and current facility provision are noted as follows:

1 Across Victoria, a number of modern facilities have been constructed and significant upgrades introduced to existing facilities to ensure facilities meet requirements of the DEDJTR Code of Practice for the Management of Dogs and Cats in Shelters and Pounds (2011).

2 Many current operations provide modern facilities with a strong focus on ensuring animals are adequately housed so as to minimise spread of disease and euthanasia rates.

3 Most Municipalities outsource their pound, animal collection and shelter services to external providers such as LDH and RSPCA. The research indicates Councils generally received a high level of service at a relatively low cost from these providers who are well renowned, publically recognisable, not-for-profit organisations that specialise in providing Animal Welfare Services. These external provider organisations also provide access to extensive networks of modern facilities to manage peak periods of overflow at existing council facilities.

4 An increasing level of community awareness and support is noted for adopting animals from shelters and local animal rescue groups through programs and special initiatives.

5 All animal welfare facilities rely on a significant level of volunteer labour to provide hands-on services, under the supervision of council staff and/or external provider organisations.

6 Significant capital and operational cost savings can be made from the provision of ‘regional’ facilities catering for multiple Municipalities.

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

3 SERV ICE NEEDS AND DEMAND FOR A NIMAL WELFARE SERVICES

Under the Domestic Animals Act, councils are obligated to provide a range of animal management and welfare services which meet the required levels of services set out in Councils Domestic Animal Welfare Management Plan 2013-2017. According to Pet Ownership in Australia (Pet Population Data in 2013), 39% of households own a dog and 29% of households own a cat. Growth in pet ownership and animal registrations rates tend to strongly align with growth in population. The need and scope for animal welfare facilities has been determined, having regard to demographic data and trends in population growth, as well as existing available data on domestic animal registrations and animals impounded by the two Municipalities.

3.1 Demand Analysis

Population Trends and Forecasts

Population and associated household formation and dwelling growth are important demand factors in identifying domestic animal ownership.

Population projections for the City of Darebin show the Municipality’s population increasing from 148,760 persons in 2015 to 183,120 persons in 2031, an increase of +34,360 persons, and an annual average growth rate of 1.3% over the period.

The same annual average growth rate (+1.3%) is forecast for the City of Moreland, with the Municipality’s population expanding from 168,680 persons in 2015 to 208,320 persons in 2031, an increase of +39,640 persons over the period.

When the Darebin/Moreland region is considered, the combined population is projected to increase from 317,440 persons to 391,440 persons over the 2015-2031period and at an annual average growth rate of 1.3%.

These population forecasts, which are sourced from Forecast id (prepared by id Consulting) and shown in Table 3.1, indicate an ongoing increase in domestic pet ownership over the coming years is very likely.

Table 3.1: Population Trends and Forecasts, 2015 to 2031

2015 2016 2021 2026 2031 Change AAGR 2011/31 2011/31 City of Darebin 148,760 151,570 163,870 174,030 183,120 +34,360 +1.3% City of Moreland 168,680 172,820 191,660 201,600 208,320 +39,640 +1.3% Region 317,440 324,390 355,530 375,630 391,440 +74,000 +1.3% Sources: Forecast id Notes: AAGR: average annual growth rate Figures rounded

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

Registration Trends

Information provided by Darebin and Moreland councils shows strong growth in domestic animal registrations over the past five years, and this is particularly the case with regard to dog registrations. Registration data is provided in Table 3.2 and summarised below.

Domestic animal registrations in the City of Darebin have increased at an average of +2.4% pa over the period 2008/09 to 2013/14, underpinned by strong registrations in dogs (+3.2% pa) and a small increase in the growth of cat registrations (+0.5%).

Domestic animal registrations in the City of Moreland have increased at an average of +7.2% pa over the period 2008/09 to 2013/14, with strong registration increases for both dogs (+8.0% pa) and cats (+5.4% pa).

When the Darebin/Moreland region is considered over the five-year period, combined domestic animal registrations increased by 4.6% pa, strongly influenced by an uplift in dog registrations of +5.4% pa, supported by a smaller minor increase in cat registrations (+2.8% pa).

Table 3.2: City of Darebin and City of Moreland Domestic Dog and Cat Registration Trends, 2008/09 to 2013/14

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Change AAGR 2008/09 2008/09 to to 2013/14 2013/14 City of Darebin Dogs 9,240 9,510 11,630 9,770 10,890 10,830 1,590 +3.2% Cats 4,770 4,770 4,850 4,670 5,100 4,900 130 +0.5% Total 14,010 14,280 16,480 14,440 15,990 15,740 1,730 +2.4% City of Moreland Dogs 7,330 9,120 10,590 10,910 10,590 10,750 3,420 +8.0% Cats 3,670 4,340 4,830 4,970 4,830 4,780 1,110 +5.4% Total 11,000 13,460 15,420 15,870 15,420 15,540 4,540 +7.2% Region Total Region – Dogs 16,570 18,630 22,220 20,680 21,480 21,580 5,010 +5.4% Region - Cats 8,440 9,110 9,680 9,640 9,930 9,680 1,240 +2.8% Region - Total 25,010 27,740 31,900 30,320 31,410 31,260 6,270 +4.6% Sources: Darebin and Moreland councils Notes: AAGR: Average Annual Growth Rate Figures rounded

Impoundment Trends

Impoundment of domestic animals in the City of Darebin has declined considerably over recent years, with annual impoundments declining from 1,823 in 2009/10 to 1,375 in 2013/14, a fall of -448 impoundments or an average decline of -6.8% pa. The reduction in impoundments was greatest for cats at -8.7% pa, with dog impoundments declining by -4.1% over the period.

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

Impoundment of domestic animals in the City of Moreland have declined at a similar rate to that of the City of Darebin, with annual impoundments declining from 1,213 in 2009/10 to 1,020 in 2013/14, a fall of -238 impoundments or an average decline of -3.4% pa. In contrast to the City of Darebin, the reduction in impoundments in the City of Moreland was greatest for dogs at -5.2% pa, with cat impoundments declining by -1.6% over the period.

When the Darebin/Moreland region is considered over the five-year period, combined domestic animal impoundments decreased by -4.6% pa, with dog impoundments reducing by - 4.2% pa and cat impoundments reducing by -5.0% pa.

Impoundment trend data is shown in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3: City of Darebin and City of Moreland Impoundment Trends, 2009/10 to 2013/14

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Change AAGR 2009/10 2009/10 to to 2013/14 2013/14 City of Darebin Dogs 727 697 703 664 614 -113 -4.1% Cats 1,096 1,055 893 728 761 -335 -8.7% Total 1,823 1,752 1,596 1,392 1,375 -448 -6.8% City of Moreland Dogs 628 950 n/a n/a 480 -148 -5.2% Cats 585 n/a n/a 590 540 -45 -1.6% Total 1,213 n/a n/a n/a 1,020 -238 -3.4% Region Total Region – Dogs 1,355 - - - 1,094 261 -4.2% Region - Cats 1,681 - - - 1,301 380 -5.0% Region - Total 3,036 - - - 2,395 641 -4.6% Sources: Darebin and Moreland councils Notes: AAGR: Average Annual Growth Rate Figures rounded

Euthanasia Rates

Through implementing a number of measures outlined in the current City of Darebin DAMP, euthanasia rates in the City of Darebin have declined considerably over the period 2010 to 2014 for both dogs (26% to 4%) and cats (91% to 33%), and the City of Darebin’s euthanasia rates are well below current State averages . For example, in 2013/14 the LDH (Victoria’s largest provider of animal welfare services) recorded euthanasia rates of 13% for dogs and 69% for cats associated with its North Melbourne and Cranbourne facilities, while in Victoria the RSPCA (second-largest provider) recorded euthanasia rates of 12% for dogs and 35% for cats in 2013/14.

Unfortunately, Moreland City Council did not have this data available to input to this study, although a clear objective of the City of Moreland DAMP 2013-17 is to reduce euthanasia rates through identified actions such as entering into 84Y agreements with selected Veterinary Care Clinics and developing and supporting a Moreland-based Community Foster Care Network.

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

In view of the objectives of each Municipality, ensuring low euthanasia rates for domestic animals should be a central consideration with regard to the development and operation of any new animal shelter and the impact of reduced euthanasia rates over the longer-term needs to be factored into demand for animal welfare services.

3.2 Estimated Long-Term Domestic Animal Pen Requirements

Domestic Animal pen requirements for the period 2016 to 2026 have been forecast for the City of Darebin, the City of Moreland and for the combined Darebin/Moreland region, as shown in Table 3.4.

The requirements are based on the following assumptions:

Dogs

 Pound period 8 days

 Shelter period 22 days

 Reclaim rate of 50%

 Euthanasia rate of 10%

Cats

 Pound period of 8 days

 Shelter period of 28 days

 Reclaim rate of 50%

 Euthanasia rate of 10%

Five year registration trend growth rates for dogs and cats in each Municipality, as shown in Table 3.3, have been applied

Based on these assumptions, domestic animal pen requirements are estimated as follows:

 By 2016, the City of Darebin will require approximately 50 domestic animal pens (20 dog pens and 30 cat pens), increasing to 59 domestic animal pens by 2026 (27 dog pens and 32 cat pens).

 By 2016, the City of Moreland will also require approximately 50 domestic animal pens (20 dog pens and 30 cat pens), increasing to 94 domestic animal pens by 2026 (43 dog pens and 51 cat pens).

 The Darebin/Moreland region will require approximately 100 domestic animal pens in 2016 (40 dog pens and 60 cat pens), increasing to 153 pens by 2026 (71 dog pens and 82 cat pens).

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

These estimated long-term animal pen requirements are used in section 3.3 to calculate indicative floorspace and land requirements for each Municipality and under an integrated Darebin/Moreland approach.

Table 3.4: City of Darebin and City of Moreland Domestic Animal Pen Requirements, 2016 to 2026

2016 2021 2026 Change AAGR 2016 to 2026 2016 to 2026 City of Darebin Dogs 20 23 27 +7 3.2% Cats 30 31 32 +2 0.5% Total 50 54 59 +9 1.7% City of Moreland Dogs 20 29 43 +23 8.0% Cats 30 39 51 +21 5.4% Total 50 68 94 +44 6.5% Region Total Dogs 40 53 71 +31 5.8% Cats 60 70 82 +22 3.2% Total 100 123 153 +53 4.3% Sources: Darebin and Moreland councils; Essential Economics Pty Ltd Notes: AAGR: Average Annual Growth Rate Figures rounded

3.3 Indicative Land and Building Requirements The scope and size of facility requirements have been determined with regard to the projected number of animal storage pens as outlined in Section 2.2 of this Report The size of animal pens has also been determined having regard to the minimum standards outlined in the ‘Code of Practice for the Management of Dogs and Cats in Shelters and Pounds’ (2011).

The indicative land and building space requirements are based on the following assumptions:

 Calculations are based on estimated demand at 2026, as summarised in Table 3.4

Building

 Dog pen area = 5m2 per pen

 Cat pen area = 4m2 per pen

 Administration Management Building = 100m2 for local facility / 200m2 for integrated facility

 Storage = 15m2 for local facility / 30m2 for integrated facility

 20% allowance added to building floorspace for post-2026 growth

 25% allowance for value-added services (vet, retail, additional offices etc)

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

Outdoor space

 Fenced dog exercise area: 25m2 for local facility / 50m2 for integrated facility

 Fenced cat exercise area: 10m2 for local facility / 20m2 for integrated facility

 Dog exercise track: 350m2 for local facility / 700m2 for integrated facility

 Service yard / unloading area: 70m2 for local facility / 140m2 for integrated facility

 Car parking: 20 space for local facility / 40 spaces for integrated facility (allow 15m2 per park)

 Internal service roads, vehicle circulation, pedestrian access, landscaping and open space: 1,000m2 for local facility / 2,000m2 for integrated facility

 20% allowance added to outdoor space to allow for post-2026 growth

City of Darebin Facility

A site of approximately 2,785m2 would be required to accommodate the needs of a stand- alone facility in Darebin. This comprises:

 570m2 of building space

 2,215m2 of outdoor space.

Based on the assessment of service needs and facility requirements articulated above, the proposed facility will include the functional components and total site area as indicated in Table 3.5. This site area should be considered a minimum as site-specific issues such as buffer requirements from neighbouring activities may also need to be factored in.

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

Table 3.5: City of Darebin Local Facility – Indicative Site Requirements

Component Area m Building Area Dog pen area 135 Cat pen area 130 Administration Management Building 100 Storage 15 Allowance for future growth 75 Allowance for value-added services 115 Sub-total - Building 570 Outdoor Area Fenced dog exercise area 25 Fenced cat exercise area 100 Dog exercise track 350 Service yard/unloading area 70 Car parking 300 Internal service roads, vehicle circulation, pedestrian access, landscaping and open space 1,000 Allowance for future growth 370 Sub-total - Outdoor Space 2,215 Total Site Area (Building and Outdoor Space) 2,785 Sources: Animal Welfare Business Case, City of Whittlesea; Essential Economics Pty Ltd and Sweett (Australia) Pty Ltd Note: Figures rounded

City of Moreland Facility

A site of approximately 3,465m2 would be required to accommodate the needs of a stand- alone facility in Moreland. This comprises:

 800m2 of building space

 2,665m2 of outdoor space.

Based on the assessment of service needs and facility requirements articulated above, the proposed facility will include the following functional components and site area as presented in Table 3.6. This site area should be considered a minimum, due to the reasons outlined above.

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

Table 3.6: City of Moreland Local Facility – Indicative Site Requirements

Component Area m2 Building Area Dog pen area 215 Cat pen area 205 Administration Management Building 100 Storage 15 Allowance for future growth 105 Allowance for value-added services 160 Sub-total - Building 800 Outdoor Area Fenced dog exercise area 30 Fenced cat exercise area 120 Dog exercise track 420 Service yard/unloading area 85 Car parking 360 Internal service roads, vehicle circulation, pedestrian access, landscaping and open space 1,200 Allowance for future growth 450 Sub-total - Outdoor Space 2,665 Total Site Area (Building and Outdoor Space) 3,465 Sources: Animal Welfare Business Case, City of Whittlesea; Essential Economics Pty Ltd and Sweett (Australia) Pty Ltd Note: Figures rounded

Integrated Darebin / Moreland Facility

A site of approximately 6,255m2 would be required to accommodate the needs of an integrated Darebin/Moreland facility. This comprises:

 1,375m2 of building space

 4,880m2 of outdoor space.

Based on the assessment of service needs and facility requirements articulated above, the proposed facility will include the following functional components and site area as in Table 3.7. This site area should be considered a minimum due to the reasons outlined above.

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

Table 3.7: Darebin/Moreland Integrated Facility – Indicative Site Requirements

Component Area m2 Building Area Dog pen area 350 Cat pen area 335 Administration Management Building 200 Storage 30 Allowance for future growth 185 Allowance for value-added services 275 Sub-total - Building 1,375 Outdoor Area Fenced dog exercise area 55 Fenced cat exercise area 220 Dog exercise track 770 Service yard/unloading area 155 Car parking 660 Internal service roads, vehicle circulation, pedestrian access, landscaping and open space 2,200 Allowance for future growth 820 Sub-total - Outdoor Space 4,880 Total Site Area (Building and Outdoor Space) 6,255 Sources: Animal Welfare Business Case, City of Whittlesea; Essential Economics Pty Ltd and Sweett (Australia) Pty Ltd Note: Figures rounded

Regional Animal Welfare Facility, Epping

As noted, this model has the potential to cater for long-term demand from the Municipalities of Darebin, Moreland and Whittlesea. This facility would require approximately 1.5ha of land, but this includes a large livestock compound, together with extensive outdoor exercise areas, significant carparking space, and room for future expansion.

Refer to Table 5.1 for full details.

3.4 Conclusions

Key demand indicators highlight ongoing need for animal welfare facilities in the City of Darebin, the City of Moreland and in a combined regional context. These demand trends include the following:

1 Strong population and household growth which will lead to higher levels of domestic pet ownership.

2 Increase in domestic animal registrations over recent years in both Municipalities.

3 Reduction in euthanasia rates for dogs and cats observed over recent years, and strong industry support for measures which lead to minimal euthanasia rates.

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

4 Although impoundment rates have fallen in both Municipalities over the past few years, the demand trends outlined above, as well as policy objectives aimed at significantly reducing euthanasia rates indicate impoundment levels will increase over time at a local and regional level.

5 Long-term demand analysis indicates the following requirements for animal welfare facilities in each Municipality and through an integrated approach over the period 2016 to 2026. City of Darebin: - 50 domestic animal pens (2016) increasing to 59 domestic animal pens (2026) - Building space 570m2 - Outdoor space 2,215m2 - Site requirement, approximately 0.3ha City of Moreland: - 50 domestic animal pens (2016) increasing to 94 domestic animal pens (2026) - Building space 800m2 - Outdoor space 2,665m2 - Site requirement, approximately 0.35ha

Darebin/Moreland integrated facility: - 100 domestic animal pens (2016) increasing to 153 domestic animal pens (2026) - Building space 1,375m2 - Outdoor space 4,880m2 - Site requirement, approximately 0.63ha

Chapter 5 provides an assessment of potential sites in the City of Darebin and the City of Moreland that may be suitable to accommodate local facilities or an integrated Darebin/Moreland facility. The Regional Animal Welfare Facility Business Case written for funding for National Stronger Regions Funding Program includes estimates for a larger regional facility incorporating the needs of the Municipalities of Whittlesea, Darebin and Moreland, and this option is also explored in Chapter 5.

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

4 ISSUES AND KEY FINDI NGS

4.1 Consultation Process

As part of this feasibility study significant consultation has taken place with Council officers (Darebin, Moreland and Whittlesea), animal rescue groups, animal shelter operators and vets. The Darebin Domestic Animal Management Plan Reference Group has also been briefed on the project and feedback has been received by some of the Reference Group’s members. A list of those consulted is included in Appendix A.

The consultation feedback has been summarised into the following themes:

 Key objectives

 Core components of an animal welfare facility

 Additional / value-added services

 Site location considerations

 Local versus regional model

 Role for animal rescue groups and other organisations

 Operational management options

4.2 Key Objectives

Based on the research undertaken and consultation with key stakeholders, the development of a new animal welfare facility should have regard for the following objectives:

 Provide modern facilities that meet the requirements of the ‘Code of Practice for the Management of Dogs and Cats in Shelters and Pounds’ (2011).

 Provide high-quality animal management services that are customer-focused and meet the needs of the community.

 Provide sufficient accommodation capacity to service the current and future demand for animal pound and shelter services.

 Ensure the site and facilities provide an appropriate presence and identifiable entrance that is easily and safely accessible by residents and other users.

 Provide a facility that represents value-for-money and is a cost-effective use of Council resources in terms of capital cost, operating cost, and ongoing maintenance cost for the facility.

 Provide services to the community in line with community expectations in relation to the care and management of animals.

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

 Provide an environment for impounded animals that is safe, ensures effective disease management and provides enrichment for animals in care.

 Minimise euthanasia rates / no kill approach / ensure healthy and treatable animals are saved and rehomed.

 Increase reclaim rates.

 Increase re-homing rates for unclaimed animals.

 Provide high-quality care to impounded animals.

 Ensure impounded animals are treated with compassion and respect.

4.3 Core Components of an Animal Welfare Facility

Based on the research undertaken in respect to best practice facilities, as well as consultation with key stakeholders, any new facility will need to consider the following core components:

 Design and operation which is aimed at minimising overcrowding, reducing disease and increasing live release rates, including: - providing adequate runs/cages for the number of animals needing to be housed - appropriate management practices that keep animals moving through the system quickly (ie, from collection to adoption or re-homing, etc)

 Compartmentalised housing for both cats and dogs (e.g. indoor/outdoor runs for dogs, cat ‘condoes’). This approach helps reduce disease transmission by facilitating cleaning without having to remove animals from cages.

 Separate housing areas for dogs and cats to minimise stress.

 Separate housing areas for adult and juvenile animals, to minimise disease transmission.

 Isolation areas for animals with infectious disease in completely separate areas to the general population.

 An adoption centre that provides access for members of the public to interact with animals in care with a view to adopting.

 A foster care office to efficiently co-ordinate with foster carers and rescue groups.

 Development of appropriate supporting programs such as: - behavioural modification program for pets needing rehabilitation before re-homing. - volunteer program that encourages the local community to become involved with their animal shelter.

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

- pet retention program that assists locals to keep their pets instead of surrendering them to the shelter.

 Animal Help Desk service to assist people in finding solutions to issues which may lead them to surrender their animal to shelter (eg providing information about pet-friendly accommodation, referrals to low-cost veterinary services, or advice on dealing with medical or behavioural issues)

 Opening times which suit working people and will assist in increasing reclaim rates. The facility should also be open at times that are most suitable to those wanting to adopt animals, such as weekends and during public holidays.

4.4 Additional / Value-Added Services

Research into current and evolving best practice animal welfare facility models also indicates a range of other allied animal welfare services can be considered for co-location at animal welfare facilities. The scope of these allied services could include the following:

 A community vet clinic that can provide services for pets (such as high-volume / low- cost de-sexing), as well as on-site treatment options for the shelter animals. An on-site facility of this nature may also reduce transportation needs / costs of accessing these services elsewhere. It is recognised, however, that contracting out of vet services to existing operators might be more cost effective to Council/operator, while many vets may not be interested in operating from an Animal Shelter or focusing mainly on this line of business.

 A small retail outlet which provides all the essentials for new pet owners, such as leashes, collars, tags, toys, educational books etc which would be beneficial and complementary to the animal shelters operations.

 A dog training / animal care education facility

 On-site animal boarding might be viable and beneficial to pet owners and in terms of revenues streams, but this service needs to be carefully considered from a disease management control perspective. Different codes apply to animal boarding and animal shelters, and disease transmission presents a risk if the two operations are co-located. Resourcing implications may also be associated with running two separate operations from the same site (depending on operational structures) and this may overstretch staff, recognising that animal shelters are generally minimally staffed. This could lead to sub-optimal outcomes in terms of quality and care.

 In a general sense, ‘clustering’ of a number of services would provide benefits to the community (assuming an accessible location), as well as additional revenue streams to support the facility and reduce costs.

The extent to which some or all of these additional services are provided will be influenced by:

 The ability of the preferred site to have sufficient capacity to incorporate additional services.

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

 The commercial arrangements (i.e. lease terms and rental rates) associated with these services.

 Council’s preferred operation model. Where external providers operate facilities, many of these services are often provided at no additional cost to Council.

4.5 Site Location Considerations

Difficulties may arise in securing appropriate sites for an animal welfare facility due to factors such as lack of availability of suitable sites, conflicts with surrounding uses, costs etc. However, securing the most appropriate location for the animal welfare facility is important for the following reasons:

 It is imperative that any shelter is geographically accessible to the community it serves, including those who are reliant on public transport.

 Maximising accessibility to the facility is likely increase community engagement, resulting in increased reclaim rates, adoptions and volunteerism.

4.6 Local (Single Council) versus Regional Model (Multiple Councils)

As identified earlier in this report, a new welfare facility(s) to service the needs of the Darebin and Moreland communities may take a number of forms, including a facility in each Municipality, or integrated Darebin/Moreland facility, or a larger regional model. The following points need to be considered as part of the model selection process:

 Advantages of a single council-run shelter include fostering a sense of identity, responsibility and enthusiasm within the immediate local community for caring for its own homeless pets.

 The community is more likely to volunteer, foster, rescue, socialise animals and assist with adoptions if the facility is centrally-located within their community.

 If a multi-council model is to be considered, the number of councils involved should be kept to a minimum to ensure community accessibility to the facility for residents and volunteers of each participating council.

4.7 Role for Animal Rescue Groups and Other Organisations

Discussions with animal rescue groups highlight the following roles and limitations of such organisations:

 Animal rescue groups are a supplement to any shelter system, but should not be relied upon to achieve the Council’s DAMP objectives.

 Animal rescue group organisations need to be permitted to assist at any point in the impound process where it is in the best interests of the animal, e.g. in the case of

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

young animals such as unweaned kittens, diseased/injured animals, animals with behavioural issues needing addressing and so on.

 The main focus of animal rescue groups should be on re-homing undertaken by the shelter.

 Animal rescue groups could be used to assist in times of crisis, for example, during kitten season, or after hoarding busts.

 Animal rescue groups have requested funding assistance to undertake the specialised work that they do.

 Council could assist rescue groups by hosting and promoting adoption days for the re- homing of animals being accommodated at the shelter, as well as those being cared for by rescue groups.

4.8 Operational/Management Options

A range of operational and management approaches and imperatives have been highlighted through the stakeholder consultation process and are summarised as follows:

 It is essential that the shelter be staffed by individuals who are passionate about animal protection and willing to design, implement and manage programs that are proven to save lives.

 Most Municipalities in Victoria outsource much of their pound, animal collection and shelter services to external providers such as the Lost Dogs Home and RSPCA. The research indicates councils generally receive a high level of service at a relatively low cost from these providers.

 Council may wish to consider contracting out the management of the shelter to suitably-qualified animal rescue organisations that have the capacity to provide animal welfare services to meet the requirements of the ‘Code of Practice for the Management of Dogs and Cats in Shelters and Pounds’ (2011). An example of this approach in Victoria is the partnership between the City of Stonnington (facility owner) and contracting of services (which also includes City of Boroondara services) to Save A Dog Scheme (SADS).

 Such arrangements are likely to involve significant utilisation of the services of volunteers, longer opening hours and access to animals which would both increase the flow of animals leaving the shelter and also minimise operating and management cost.

 Where a facility involves multiple parties, cost-sharing arrangement between the parties would need to be agreed, but might include:

- upfront capital contributions to facility design and construction

- service provision based on an agreed service model (possibly involving a single contract to an external provider)

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

- contributions to operating costs, including maintenance, insurances, utilities, overheads.

 Consideration should be given to establishing an ethics committee of suitably qualified experts to consider issues (such as euthanasia) at both a policy level and on a case-by- case basis. The Lort Smith Animal Hospital has such a model in place. Alternatively, existing council committees may be able to fulfil this role (eg Darebin Domestic Animal Management Reference Group).

 Where the eventual service provision model involves a contract to an external provider, this would involve a competitive procurement process to secure a reputable operator for the facility.

 The EOI/Tender documentation should set clear performance standards/criteria relating to the objectives for the facility, expectations and responsibilities of the operator, relationships/partnerships with rescue groups/volunteers etc. in order to secure suitably-qualified animal rescue organisations which have the capacity to provide animal welfare services to meet the requirements of the ‘Code of Practice for the Management of Dogs and Cats in Shelters and Pounds’ (2011).

A further discussion of potential operational model is detailed in Chapter 6.

4.9 Conclusions

This Chapter on issues and key findings, which is underpinned by stakeholder consultation, reaches the following conclusions:

1 Key objectives focus on quality animal care, reduced rates of euthanasia, effective disease management, and meeting community expectations.

2 Core components include a design which provides adequate space for animals and appropriate areas to minimise infectious diseases, provision for facilities for adoption services, animal help desk, targeted programs, and opening hours which best align with community needs.

3 Value-added services might include a community vet clinic, retail outlet, dog training/animal care centre, and boarding kennels (subject to appropriate disease minimisation measures being in place).

4 Site location considerations focus principally on centrality to the community by ensuring the facility is located in an area with good accessibility, including access by public transport.

5 Local versus regional model indicates a clear preference for a local model (or a facility that is central to the user community) as this is most likely to encourage community involvement, such as volunteerism, adoptions, fostering etc. Any regional model should be kept to a small number of councils.

6 Role of animal rescue groups should mainly be focused on the re-homing of animals (although other specialist activities could be provided). However, to be effective rescue groups have requested appropriate funding to support their work.

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

7 Operational models take a number of forms but generally involve outsourcing one or more services to established organisations (such as the LDH or RSPCA) or a suitably- qualified animal rescue group (such as SADS).

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

5 ASSESSMENT OF SITE O PTIONS

This Chapter explores potential site options for an animal shelter that meet identified requirements in each Municipality. The assessment is based on the findings of the preceding Chapters with regard to demand and need, best practice, site requirements (building and land) and consultation findings. A base case and preferred options are identified for detailed evaluation.

5.1 City of Darebin Site Options

5.1.1 City of Darebin Day Stay Animal Holding Facility, Reservoir

The City of Darebin currently operates a day stay animal holding facility at Council’s Reservoir Depot. The holding facility is located to the eastern part of the site and is accessed through Carawa Drive, as shown in Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1: City of Darebin Day Stay Animal Holding Facility, Reservoir

Subject Site

Source: Darebin City Council

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

The facility has a building floorspace of approximately 190m2, which accommodates approximately 6 dog kennels and 9 cat cages. Small storage and preparation areas and an outside drop off area are also located here. Only limited space is available for animal exercise, with the entire site measuring approximately 380m2 (of which approximately 190m2 is outdoor space).

Access to the public is currently limited due to a range of co-located Council operations which include truck parking, chemical storage, and resource recovery activities.

The site is ‘landlocked’ by other permanent uses which include a Council truck wash facility directly north of the site and an abandoned vehicle pound directly south of the site. Council advises no potential exists to expand the existing Animal Holding Facility footprint. Layout of the existing facility is shown in Figure 5.2.

Figure 5.2: Site Layout – City of Darebin Day Stay Animal Holding Facility, Carawa Drive Reservoir

Source: Darebin City Council

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

Advantages

 Council-owned land

 currently used as an animal holding facility

 accessible and central location in the City of Darebin.

Disadvantages

 land area too small to meet existing needs

 no space for expansion

 public access would not be not ideal; conflict with multiple activities

 ongoing public complaints regarding noise impacts on nearby residential areas (regarding the general site).

Assessment

The existing Darebin Day Stay Animal Facility is not a viable site for the development of an Animal Shelter, principally due to significant size constraints.

5.1.2 Sites Located on Council Land (Public Use Zone)

Apart from the Reservoir depot site, the City of Darebin owns 14 sites which are located in the Public Use Zone (PUZ). A review of these sites indicates none would be suitable to accommodate an Animal Welfare Shelter for a range of reasons, including the following:

 sites already occupied with existing Council assets (library, council buildings, car park etc)

 community uses occupy the sites (community centre, youth club etc)

 sites are used as public open space (parkland, playground etc)

 The land area is too small to accommodate the size of facility required (less than 0.3ha in size)

 Sites are located in residential areas. Animal welfare/ pound facilities can have significant impacts on surrounding areas in terms of noise (e.g. barking dogs).

Most of Council’s PUZ sites are constrained by more than one of the above factors, with almost all sites located in close proximity to existing residential areas.

Appendix B provides full details of each site.

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

5.1.3 Sites Located on Industrial Zoned Land

Only a very limited supply of industrial land is available in the City of Darebin, with this land mainly located in the Municipality’s three core industrial areas at Reservoir, East Preston and Fairfield.

According to State Government data (Urban Development Program 2014) the Municipality has just 15ha of vacant industrial land out of a total stock of 307ha. This represents a vacancy rate of less than 5%, and indicates that acquiring a suitable site would be difficult and potentially expensive in view of competition for limited land supply.

For example, assuming a land area of 0.3ha is required for a local shelter, acquisition costs for this area of land in the current industrial market would be in the order of $600,000 (based on an average sale rate of $200/m2 for industrial zoned land (source: Savills Spotlight Melbourne Industrial, January 2015 – based on average vacant land prices in North-West Melbourne for land sizes from 0.3ha to 0.5ha in size). When construction and fit-out costs of $3.7 million (refer to Table 6.1) are factored in, the total cost of a commercial option is approximately $4.3 million.

Apart from land cost considerations, the ability to acquire a suitable site would be dependent on an appropriate site becoming available to the market and Council being successful in bidding for the site against competing commercial interests.

Another option could be to purchase a sufficiently large site containing an existing industrial building (eg warehouse) that could be retrofitted as required. Based on a 570m2 building requirement, the cost of the building is likely to be around $1.1 million (allowing for $2,000/m2) with additional costs associated with the required outdoor areas of approximately $440,000 (2,215m2@$200/m2), plus retrofitting costs. When costs associated with retrofitting the building of $2.7 million (refer to Table 6.1) are factored in, the total cost of this approach would also be approximately $4.2 million.

5.1.4 City of Darebin Recommendation

Based on the above analysis, it is concluded no suitable Council-owned sites are available to accommodate an Animal Welfare Shelter capable of supporting identified long-term needs.

While the purchase of commercial land or commercial building and land is possible, the cost of these approaches is likely to be prohibitive to Council when compared to capital costs associated with an integrated approach with another council/or councils.

The recommendation for Darebin is to partner with either Moreland through an integrated Darebin/Moreland facility, or to join Whittlesea (and potentially Moreland) as part of the proposed Whittlesea Regional Animal Welfare Facility.

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

5.2 City of Moreland Site Options

5.2.1 Site Adjoining City of Moreland Council Depot (Hadfield)

The City of Moreland has recently purchased a 1.25ha site located at 48-54 South Street Hadfield, which is adjacent to Council’s Walter Street Operations Centre (Council Works Depot). The site was previously used as a food processing plant and is located in a Commercial 2 Zone.

Council intends to retain 2,905m2 of the site for its operational needs, but lease the remaining land and buildings to provide future economic growth and employment opportunities. The leasable site includes a gross building area of 4,156m2 and a total land area of 9,625m2. Alternatively, the building and land might be used for other Council services (such as relocation of operations from other sites).

Figure 5.3 provides an overview of the site, while Figure 5.4 shows external and internal images of the building. At present the facility is vacant and potentially available for use as an animal welfare shelter (subject to Council approval). This would require part of the former food factory building being retrofitted to meet the requirements of an animal welfare shelter. Given the large size of the building and land, such a facility could also accommodate the needs of the City of Darebin through an integrated Darebin/Moreland facility.

Advantages

 Council-owned property which is integrated with other Council assets and services.

 Central location in the City of Moreland and reasonably central to the City of Darebin.

 Good public transport access, including bus service directly to the site (route 534 Glenroy-Coburg), which also connects with Merlynston, Batman and Glenroy railway stations and tram services along Sydney Road.

 Sufficient building area to accommodate a local (City of Moreland) or regional (Darebin/Moreland) Animal Shelter.

 Ample outdoor spaces for animal exercise.

 Sufficient outdoor space for loading/unloading, car parking, vehicle circulation, pedestrian access etc.

 Building footprint large enough to include value-added services such as vet, retail, offices etc.

Disadvantages

 The site directly abuts Residential 1 Zoned land to the west, although no residential properties abut the site to the north, east or south.

 Intensification of residential living in this general area is taking place through Council rezoning from IN3Z to R1Z of nearby properties at 2-6 and 8-10 Walter Street.

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

 Building size is far in excess of what is required (even under a regional model), which may lead to sub-optimal property outcomes for Council unless the remaining floorspace could be adequately designed for compatible multi-use purposes.

 Costs associated with refurbishment and retrofitting, which could include expensive items such as air-conditioning.

 Specific soundproofing measures would need to be implemented to preserve residential amenity.

 Council is currently looking to lease the site; with the possibility the site will become unavailable if a tenant is secured in the interim.

Assessment

Part of this site could be potentially suitable for the animal welfare facility requirement (either as a local facility for Moreland or as a combined Darebin/ Moreland facility). This preliminary assessment would be subject to further detailed investigations of existing building conditions, available services, scope of upgrade requirements, and specialist design advice that the site could be upgraded to accommodate the functional requirements.

Figure 5.3: City of Moreland’s 48-54 South Street, Hadfield Site – Aerial View

Source: Moreland City Council

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

Figure 5.4: City of Moreland’s 48-54 South Street, Hadfield Site – Street View

Source: Moreland City Council

5.2.2 Sites located on Public Use Zoned Land

No PUZ sites have been identified by Moreland City Council as being suitable for the development of an animal welfare facility.

5.2.3 Sites Located on Industrial Zoned Land

The City of Moreland has a very limited supply of industrial land, with the Urban Development Program 2014 showing just 12ha of vacant industrial land out of a total stock of 277ha. This represents a vacancy rate of 4% and indicates that acquiring a suitable site would be difficult and potentially expensive.

The City of Moreland’s core industrial areas are identified in the Moreland Industrial Land Use Strategy (MILUS), with the main areas located in Brunswick, Coburg North, and Newlands. In each of these areas land vacancies are scarce.

The same observations apply to Moreland as per Darebin (see above) in terms of land purchase costs and difficulty securing a suitable site in a tight and very competitive local industrial property market.

For example, assuming a land area of 0.35ha is required for a local shelter, acquisition costs for this amount of land in the current industrial market would be in the order of $700,000 (based on an average rate of $200/m2 of industrial zoned land (source: Savills Spotlight Melbourne Industrial, January 2015 – based on average vacant land prices in North-West Melbourne for land sizes from 0.3ha to 0.5ha in size). When construction and fit-out costs of $5.1 million (refer to Table 6.1) are factored in, the total cost of a commercial option is approximately $5.8 million.

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

As is the case with the City of Darebin, the ability to acquire a suitable site would be dependent on the most appropriate site becoming available to the market and Council being successful in bidding for the site against competing commercial interests.

Another option would be to purchase a sufficiently large site with an existing building which can then be retrofitted as required. Based on an 800m2 building requirement, the cost of the building is likely to be around $1.6 million (allowing for $2,000/m2), plus additional costs associated with the required outdoor areas of approximately $530,000 (2,665m2@$200/m2), plus retrofitting costs. When costs associated with retrofitting the building of $3.0 million (refer to Table 6.1) are factored in, the total cost of this approach would also be approximately $5.1 million.

5.2.4 City of Moreland Recommendation

It is recommended the Council site located at 48-54 South Street, Hadfield be considered as a potential Animal Welfare Facility; however, such a facility should be assessed as a joint Darebin/Moreland proposition, recognising the large size of the Hadfield site and the lack of realistic site options in neighbouring Darebin.

5.3 Whittlesea Regional Animal Welfare Facility, Epping

The proposed Whittlesea Regional Animal Welfare Facility is located on a 1.9ha Council-owned site at 490 Cooper Street, Epping, with Council also owning the two adjoining sites (1.0 ha).

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

Figure 5.5: Regional Animal Welfare Facility Site – 490 Coopers Street Epping

Subject Site

Source: Animal Welfare Facility Business Case, City of Whittlesea 2014

The Animal Welfare Facility Business Case provides details of the functional components to be included in the development, which are shown in Table 5.1 and comprise the following approximate areas:

 1,830m2 of building space, including 250 pens and provision for additional pens

 2,350m2 for livestock compound

 10,950m2 of outdoor space (animal exercise areas, carparking, site access etc)

 Total Area: 15,130m2

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

Table 5.1: Regional Animal Welfare Facility, Epping – Functional Components

Space Function Approx. Area (m2)

Administration Offices, Customer Service access Staff and administration offices, customer service / 504 reception areas for up to 20 staff. Canine, Feline, other Animal Facilities Holding pens for animals including facilities for 1,050 isolation, quarantine, shelter, adoption, supporting service and storage areas (including for dangerous dogs). Pen numbers: - Canine Pens (No.100) - Feline Pens (No.150)

Future Provision Provision of basic building infrastructure to cater for 280 additional pens in 2021. Livestock Compound Two fenced livestock paddocks, each of 2,350 approximately 1,000 m2 in area and loading area of 350 m3. External / Outdoor Areas Animal exercise areas / tracks, secured unloading 9,700 areas, landscaping and pedestrian access, building setbacks, allowances for growth. Car Park, Site Access Car parking for service users providing access to 1,250 facility. Total approximate Site Area (rounded) 15,130 Source: Animal Welfare Facility Business Case, City of Whittlesea 2014 Note: Figures rounded

5.4 Recommended Candidate Options

Based on the above analysis of potential site options, the following candidate site options are recommended:

1. Moreland Council’s 48-54 South Street, Hadfield site – which would accommodate the integrated needs of the Municipalities of Darebin and Moreland.

2. Whittlesea Council’s 490 Cooper Street, Epping site – which would accommodate the integrated needs of the Municipalities of Whittlesea, Darebin and Moreland (as outlined in the Whittlesea Animal Welfare Facility Business Case).

The existing City of Darebin Day Stay Animal Holding Facility at Reservoir is not a suitable candidate to accommodate an animal welfare facility, principally due to size restrictions; however, this site together with the existing Moreland animal welfare arrangements is included in the options evaluation as the Do Nothing Option.

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

6 EVALUATION OF CANDIDATE OPTIONS

6.1 Candidate Site Options

This Chapter provides a comparative evaluation of the two candidate site options and benchmarks the outcomes against the Do Nothing Option. Based on the evaluation, a recommended option is identified.

6.1.1 Do Nothing Option

Under this option, Darebin Council would continue to operate from the existing site at the Reservoir Depot with minimal upgrades, while Moreland Council would continue with its existing outsourcing arrangements. The following summarises the advantages and disadvantages of this option:

Advantages

 Both councils would defer capital expenditure of a new Animal Welfare Facility.

 Council officers would not be personally responsible for euthanizing animals

Disadvantages

 Darebin City Council’s existing facility at Reservoir only complies with the ‘Code of Practice for the Management of Dogs and Cats in Shelters and Pounds’ (2011) as a day stay holding facility.

 The existing facility at Darebin has insufficient capacity to cope with current and future requirements for animal management and welfare facilities.

 The existing site at Reservoir has poor public presence and street address, being located within an operational Depot.

 Council may receive negative feedback through community and animal welfare groups regarding the existing facilities.

 Moreland Council remains without an animal shelter.

 It is unlikely the Do Nothing option would contribute to key objectives identified in this study, such as ensuring quality animal care, reducing euthanasia rates, minimising the spread of disease etc.

 Increased media scrutiny and public concern regarding the operations of the LDH (current provider of services to both Darebin and Moreland Councils).

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

6.1.3 Hadfield – Moreland/Darebin Option

Advantages

Refer to section 5.2.1

Disadvantages

Refer to section 5.2.1

6.1.4 Regional Animal Welfare Facility, Epping Option

Advantages

 Council-owned land

 additional sites available if required

 facility well advanced in terms of planning and design

 sufficient space to meet demand now and well into the future

 sufficient space to accommodate value-added and clustering of facilities (if opportunities arise)

 ongoing financial savings to all participating Councils through operational efficiencies of scale.

 Darebin and Moreland Councils would not need to be directly involved in the project management of the facility

 no need for Darebin or Moreland Councils to purchase new land or utilise existing Council-owned sites

Disadvantages

 location not central to some user communities

 lack of public transport access

 the above factors could lead to sub-optimal outcomes in terms of volunteers, adoptions, fostering etc. if the facility is not embraced by all communities

 potential for complex operational and management arrangements.

6.2 Economic Assessment

Preliminary capital and operational cost estimates have been prepared for the above options having regard to the functional specification included in Chapter 2 of this report.

The following assumptions are made with regard to the economic assessment

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

Option 1 – Do Nothing (Base Case)

 $50,000 refurbishment costs have been factored In for the existing Darebin facility

 Cost of service of $250,000 pa each for the City of Darebin and City of Moreland are assumed (or $500,000 for both Councils combined).

 Operational costs for Darebin facility of 25,000pa

Option 2 – Hadfield – Moreland/Darebin Option

 $6.6 million refurbishment costs are apportioned on likely demand (City of Darebin 40% / City of Moreland 60%)

 Cost of service of $330,000 pa (both Councils combined), which assumes joint operational costs would be two thirds of the Do Nothing Option through efficiency savings. Costs are apportioned on likely demand (City of Darebin 40% / City of Moreland 60%)

 Operational costs pa of $15,000 pa apportioned on likely demand (City of Darebin / 40% City of Moreland 60%).

Option 3 – Regional Animal Welfare Facility, Epping Option

Estimates have been prepared based on data provided by the City of Whittlesea under a regional model including the City of Whittlesea, City of Darebin and City of Moreland.

 $1.8 capital cost contribution from the City of Darebin and City of Moreland, which is apportioned on likely demand (City of Darebin 40% / City of Moreland 60%)

 Cost of service contribution of $95,000 pa (both Councils combined) apportioned on likely demand ( City of Darebin 40% / City of Moreland 60%).

 Operational costs pa of $8,000 pa apportioned on likely demand (City of Darebin / 40% City of Moreland 60%).

Financial Results

When the two candidate sites are compared in terms of financial outcomes , the Regional Animal Welfare Facility, Epping Option is the most cost-effective option in terms of:

 Capital costs (upfront): $3.6 million versus $6.6 million for the Hadfield Site - Darebin/Moreland Option

 Operational costs – which are Based on Net Present Value (NPV) over 25 years using a 3.5% Discount Rate: $1.8 million versus $5.8 million for the Hadfield Site - Darebin/ Moreland Option. The Do Nothing Option, while incurring minimal capital costs (but also generating no new asset value), is estimated to cost $9.4 million in mainly operating cost with an external service provider over 25 years (NPV), and will deliver sub-optimal animal welfare outcomes (which are explored in Section 6.3).

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

Table 6.1: Capital and Operational Cost Estimates

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Do Nothing Hadfield Site Regional Animal Welfare Facility, Scenario (Darebin and Epping Moreland) Fit-Out Capital Costs City of Darebin $50,000 $2,630,000 $1,424,000 (nominal refurbishment) City of Moreland $0 $3,945,000 $2,136,000 Darebin and Moreland $50,000 $6,575,000 $3,560,000 Total Capital Costs Operating Costs over 25 years (Net Present Value) Costs for Service (over 25 years) City of Darebin $4,264,590 $2,251,710 $648,220 ($250,000pa) ($132,000pa) ($38,000pa) City of Moreland $4,264,590 $3,337,560 $972,330 ($250,000pa) ($198,000pa) ($57,000pa) Darebin and Moreland $8,529,180 $5,589,270 $1,620,550 ($500,000pa) ($330,000pa) ($95,000pa) Facility Operating Costs (over 25 years) City of Darebin $426,440 $102,350 $54,590 ($25,000pa) ($6,000pa) $3,200pa) City of Moreland - $153,530 $81,880 ($9,000pa) ($4,800pa) Darebin and Moreland $426,440 $255,880 $136,470 ($25,000pa) ($15,000pa) ($8,000pa) Darebin and Moreland $9,382,060 $5,845,150 $1,757,020 Total Operational Costs City of Darebin $4,741,030 $4,984,060 $2,126,810 (TOTAL CAPITAL + OPERATIONAL) City of Moreland $4,691,030 $7,436,090 $3,190,210 (TOTAL CAPITAL + OPERATIONAL) Darebin and Moreland (TOTAL CAPITAL + $9,432,060 $12,420,150 $5,317,020 OPERATIONAL) Source: City of Darebin, City of Moreland, City of Whittlesea, Essential Economics Pty Ltd and Sweett (Australia) Pty Ltd Note: Figures rounded

Estimated Payback Period

When the options are compared in terms of payback period on capital outlay (refer to Table 6.2), the Regional Animal Welfare Facility, Epping Option provides the best results with payback periods of 7 year and 15 years for the City of Darebin City and City of Moreland respectively.

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

In contrast the Hadfield – Moreland/Darebin Option would require a payback period of approximately 25 years for the City of Darebin and well in excess of 25 years for the City of Moreland.

Table 6.2: Estimated Payback Period – Hadfield and Epping Options

Option Indicator City of Darebin City of Moreland Hadfield Site Capital Cost $2,630,000 $3,945,000 Darebin/Moreland 25 Year Operational Savings $2,337,000 $2,107,000

Payback Period 25 years plus 25 years plus

Regional Animal Welfare Capital Cost $1,424,000 $2,136,000 Facility Epping 25 Year Operational Savings $3,988,000 $3,210,000

Payback Period 7 years 15 years

Source: Table 6.1; Essential Economics Pty Ltd and Sweett (Australia) Pty Ltd Note: Figures rounded

6.3 Evaluation Framework

Considering the advantages and disadvantages of the three options, a comparative rated assessment was undertaken of the options to confirm which option best aligns with the project outcomes and objectives. As a basis for evaluation, a series of evaluation criteria were adopted which also include a weighting to distinguish their relative importance. The criteria are detailed in Table 6.3.

Table 6.3 Comparative Assessment of Options – Evaluation Criteria

Options Evaluation Criteria Category Weighting of Importance 1. Facility satisfies council’s operational / service requirements. 25% Provide a modern standard of office and workspace amenity that satisfies Council’s operational and service model requirements. 2. Economic Impacts 35% Capital and recurrent cost of facility provision; cost effective use of council resources. 3. Social / Community Impacts and Benefits 15% Facility easily and safely accessed by residents and other users. 4. Regulatory/ Strategic Policy compliance 25% Facility that is compliant with the ‘Code of Practice for the Management of Dogs and Cats in Shelters and Pounds’ (2011); Council Animal Welfare Plan, Community Plan Total 100% Source: Essential Economics Pty Ltd and Sweett (Australia) Pty Ltd

A 10-point rating system has also been adopted, taking into consideration the importance of the evaluation criteria: 10 points is a High Rating, while 0 points is a Low Rating. The ratings have been assigned based on the information contained in this report (eg policy requirements,

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

demand analysis, issues and opportunities, financial assessment) and the consultants professional judgement.

6.4 Options Evaluation

The results of the Options Evaluation are presented in Table 6.4 and summarised as follows:

 The best overall outcomes for the City of Darebin and the City of Moreland would be achieved through the Regional Animal Welfare Facility, Epping Option, with this Option evaluated at 9.20 out of a possible 10.0.

 The Hadfield Darebin/Moreland Option is the second choice, with a rating of 7.00 out of 10.0.

 The Do Nothing Option retuned a score of 4.50 out of 10.0.

Table 6.4 Options Evaluation Assessment

Total 2.5 3.15 1.05 2.50 9.20 Source: Essential Economics Pty Ltd and Sweett (Australia) Pty Ltd

6.5 Preferred Option

This Options Evaluation indicates the proposed Regional Animal Welfare Facility, Epping Option should be the preferred option for both Darebin and Moreland Councils to pursue.

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

7 OPERATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 Operational Service and Management Model Options

Darebin Council’s current operational model involves a day stay animal holding facility which is used to contain animals before they are transported to a registered Domestic Animal Business – Pound and Shelter. Darebin Council has no animal pound facilities and all pound services, seized animals and afterhours animal collections are being managed by an external service provider (the Lost Dogs Home). The cost to Council of existing arrangements is estimated at $250,000 pa.

The current scope of Moreland City Council animal management is the same as Darebin, but without a day stay holding facility to contain animals before they are transported to a registered Domestic Animal Business – Pound and Shelter. The cost to Council of existing arrangements is estimated at $250,000 pa.

In addition to the existing operational model, other operational models have been evaluated to determine the optimum operational model for the proposed new facility. These are briefly described below, together with their advantages, disadvantages and financial implications.

Potential Providers

As noted, most if not all Municipalities in Victoria, adopt a mix of council service and outsourced service provision. In many cases, much of the pound, animal collection and shelter services are provided by external providers, with oversight provided by council officers. The mix of potential providers of animal welfare services could therefore include:

 Local Government

 Lost Dogs Home

 RSPCA

 Animal Rescue Organisations

 Private Operator

Operational Models

The advantages, disadvantages and high-level financial implications of Council service provision compared to outsourced service provision are outlined below.

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

Council Operated Collection, Pound and Shelter Services

Under this option, Council would provide pound and animal collection services in line with legislative requirements and shelter services (after the minimum 8-day holding period). Council would likely be required to employ additional staff resources to undertake this service at a far greater cost than the current annual contract cost.

The advantages and disadvantages of this service model are noted as follows:

Advantages:

 Council officers would provide a high level of service for pound and shelter services.

 Council may have a greater level of management control over the operation of a facility if provided at a local level.

Disadvantages:

 Council would likely be required to employ a larger number of staff resources (potentially an addition of 3 to 4 staff resources) to undertake this service and at a higher cost than the current annual contract cost.

 The overall annual cost to Council is likely to be more than double the current cost.

 Council may receive negative feedback through community and animal welfare groups regarding the level of service.

 Council will not have additional support from specialist outsourced providers (such as the RSPCA) which often are held with high regard in the community.

 Council would incur the additional costs, such as animal management and veterinary costs, until animals are re-housed.

 The length of stay for animals after the 8-day period can vary substantially and it is possible that higher rates of euthanasia may occur or if required to keep animals longer periods will increase costs considerably.

 Council will have a lower level of access to the outsourced providers’ often extensive network of shelters to provide additional overflow shelter services and professional advice.

Fully-Outsourced Animal Welfare Service Provision

This option generally aligns with Darebin and Moreland City Councils’ current outsourcing of animal collection and shelter services to the LDH.

The advantages and disadvantages of this service model are noted as follows:

Advantages:

 Council receives a high level of service for a relatively low cost.

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

 A low level of Council staff supervision is required.

 Specialist outsourced providers (such as the RSPCA) are often held with high regard in the community and are a renowned, publically recognisable, not-for-profit organisation that specialises in providing Animal Welfare and expert advice on animal-related matters.

 The existing contract with the LDH places a significant responsibility on the LDH to provide a high level of service, including established performance standards.

Disadvantages:

 Council relinquishes control of animal welfare provision.

This feasibility study concludes that the outsourced operational model will provide greater benefits to Council at a relatively lower overall cost.

Importantly, the proposed Whittlesea Regional Animal Welfare, at the Epping site is based on an outsourced operational model which provides animal management services at significant cost savings due to economies of scale and regionalisation.

In addition, details of the service provision will be based on an agreed service model with the three participating Councils (i.e. Darebin, Moreland, Whittlesea) and it is proposed that a new Contract procurement process would be introduced to secure a contractor based on the new facility proposed for construction in Cooper Street, Epping.

Furthermore, this new facility could involve some form of shared services agreement between the Councils. Shared services involve councils working together and/or with other organisations to share costs and resources, including the delivery of external services.

As part of this agreed service model with the three participating Councils, the role and governance arrangements of volunteers, including Animal Rescue Group Organisations, would need to be clearly defined.

7.2 Financial Contributions

Under the preferred regional model it would reasonably be expected that financial contributions from Darebin and Moreland councils reflect the following:

 usage levels,

 management responsibilities, and

 occupation of facility.

As a general observation, the following proportional annual operational contributions might be expected (based on information included in the Whittlesea Animal Welfare Facility Business Case and subsequent discussions with Whittlesea Council and likely demand identified for each of the three Municipalities:

 City of Whittlesea: 60%

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

 City of Darebin: 15%

 City of Moreland: 25%

The NPV operational data included in Table 6.1 is based broadly on these ratios.

7.3 Conclusions

1 When operational models are considered, an outsourced approach is likely to provide the greatest benefits to each Council in terms of service levels and cost.

2 Shared services arrangements have demonstrated in a range of circumstances to provide significant cost savings to Councils and should be explored further with Whittlesea City Council as part of the proposed regional model.

3 Under the regional model, operational financial contributions should be based on usage levels, management responsibilities and occupation of the facility, and indicatively might be proportioned as follows: City of Whittlesea (60%), City of Darebin (15%), and City of Moreland (25%).

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

8 KEY FINDINGS AND REC OMMENDATIONS

Background and Research Findings

1 Across Victoria, a number of modern facilities have been constructed and significant upgrades to existing facilities have been introduced to ensure facilities meet requirements of the DEPI Code of Practice for the Management of Dogs and Cats in Shelters and Pounds (2011).

2 Many current operations provide modern facilities with a strong focus on ensuring animals are adequately housed so as to minimise the spread of disease and to reduce euthanasia rates.

3 Most Municipalities outsource their pound, animal collection and shelter services to external providers such as the Lost Dogs Home and RSPCA. The research indicates councils generally receive a high level of service at a relatively low cost from these providers who are renowned, publically recognisable, not-for-profit organisations that specialise in providing animal welfare services. These external provider organisations also provide access to extensive networks of modern facilities to manage peak periods of overflow at existing council facilities.

4 Increasing levels of community awareness and support for adopting animals from shelters and local animal rescue groups through programs and special initiatives is noted.

5 All animal welfare facilities rely on a significant level of volunteer labour to provide hands-on services, under the supervision of council staff and/or external provider organisations.

6 Significant capital and operational cost savings are potentially available through the provision of ‘regional’ facilities catering for multiple Municipalities.

Services Needs and Demand for Animal Welfare Services

7 Strong population and household growth which will lead to higher levels of domestic pet ownership.

8 Increase in domestic animal registrations over recent years in both Municipalities.

9 Reduction in euthanasia rates for dogs and cats observed over recent years, and strong industry support for measures which lead to minimal euthanasia rates.

10 Although impoundment rates have fallen in both Municipalities over the past few years, the demand trends outlined above, as well as policy objectives aimed at significantly reducing euthanasia rates indicate impoundment levels will increase over time at a local and regional level.

11 Long-term demand analysis indicates the following requirements for animal welfare facilities in each Municipality and through an integrated approach over the period 2016 to 2026.

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

City of Darebin: - 50 domestic animal pens (2016) increasing to 59 domestic animal pens (2026) - Building space 570m2 - Outdoor space 2,215m2 - Site requirement, approximately 0.3ha City of Moreland: - 50 domestic animal pens (2016) increasing to 94 domestic animal pens (2026) - Building space 800m2 - Outdoor space 2,665m2 - Site requirement, approximately 0.35ha

Issues and Key Findings

12 Key objectives focus on providing quality animal care, reduced rates of euthanasia, effective disease management, and meeting community expectations.

13 Core components include facility designs which provide adequate space for animals and appropriate areas to minimise infectious diseases, provision for facilities for adoption services, animal help desk, targeted programs, and opening hours which best align with community needs.

14 Value-added services might include a community Veterinarian clinic, retail outlet, dog training/animal care centre and boarding kennels (subject to appropriate disease minimisation measures being in place).

15 Site location considerations focus principally on centrality to the community by ensuring the facility is located in an area with good accessibility, including access by public transport.

16 Local versus regional model indicates a clear preference for a local model (or a facility that is central to the user community) as this is likely to encourage most community involvement, such as volunteerism, adoptions, fostering etc. Any regional model should be kept to a small number of councils.

17 The role of animal rescue group organisations should mainly be focused on re-homing of animals (although other specialist activities could be provided). However, to be effective, rescue groups have requested appropriate funding to support their work.

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

18 Operational models take a number of forms but generally involve outsources of one or more services to established organisations (such as the LDH or RSPCA) or a suitably qualified animal rescue group (such as SADS).

Assessment of Site Options

19 Based on an analysis of potential site options, the following candidate site options are recommended: - Moreland Council’s 48-54 South Street, Hadfield site – which would accommodate the integrated needs of the Municipalities of Darebin and Moreland. - Whittlesea Council’s 490 Cooper Street, Epping site – which would accommodate the integrated needs of the Municipalities of Whittlesea, Darebin and Moreland (as outlined in the Whittlesea Animal Welfare Facility Business Case).

20 The existing City of Darebin Day Stay Animal Holding Facility at Reservoir is not a suitable candidate site to accommodate an animal welfare facility, principally due to size restrictions; however, this site together with existing Moreland arrangements is included in the options evaluation as the Do Nothing Option.

Options Evaluation

21 The options evaluation results shown in Table 8.1 indicate the proposed Regional Animal Welfare Facility, Epping Option should be the preferred option for both Darebin and Moreland Councils to pursue.

Table 8.1: Options Evaluation Assessment

Total 2.5 3.15 1.05 2.50 9.20 Source: Essential Economics Pty Ltd and Sweett (Australia) Pty Ltd

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

Operational and Management Considerations

22 When operational models are considered, an outsourced approach is likely to provide the greatest benefits to each Council in terms of service levels and cost.

23 Shared services arrangements have demonstrated in a range of circumstances to provide significant cost savings to Councils and should be explored further, with Whittlesea City Council as part of the proposed Regional Model.

24 Under the Regional Model, operational financial contributions should be based on usage levels, management responsibilities and occupation of the facility, and indicatively might be proportioned City of Whittlesea (60%), City of Darebin (15%), and City of Moreland (25%).

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

APPEN DICIES

A. Stakeholders Consulted

Samantha McKernan – Maneki Nero Cat Rescue

Rallou Lubitz – Darebin Domestic Animal Management Reference Group

Nell Thompson – Getting Towards Zero Program

Ange McLaren – German Shepherd Rescue Victoria Inc

Michaela Newell – The Animal Rehoming Service

Tarsha Andrews – Pound Reform Alliance Australia Inc

Kathleen Chapman – Save Darebin Pets

Zana Moss – Paws of Love Animal Rescue

Andrea Montesano – Reservoir Vet Clinic

Ellie Mandritis – Darebin City Council

Craig Bruckner – Darebin City Council

Eddy Boscariol – Darebin City Council

Leigh Goullet – Darebin City Council

Neil Hocking – Whittlesea City Council

Jeffry Amy – Moreland City Council

Olivia Wright – Moreland City Council

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

B. Darebin Sites Located on Public Use Zoned Land

Figure B.1: Yarana Road, Alphington

Size: 4.0ha Zoning: Public Use 6 Current Use: Council Depot / SES Northcote Unit Surrounding uses: North – Parkland; East – Parkland; South – Railway Line; West – Residential Assessment: Not available

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

Figure B.2: Arthur Street, Fairfield

Size: 0.28 ha Zoning: Public Use 6 Current Use: Community Centre Surrounding uses: North – Commercial/Residential; East – Residential; South – Commercial/ Residential; West – Commercial Assessment: Not available/too small/surrounded by residential uses

Figure B.3: Dunne Street, Kingsbury

Size: 0.28ha Zoning: Public Use 6 Current Use: Parkland Surrounding uses: North – Residential; East – Residential; South – Residential; West – Commercial Assessment: Not available/too small/surrounded by residential uses

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

Figure B.4: Arthurton Road, Northcote

Size: 3.2ha Zoning: Public Use 6 Current Use: Council Carpark Surrounding uses: North – Mixed Use / Commercial; East – Commercial; South – Mixed Use / Commercial / Residential; West – Residential / Industrial / Mixed Use Assessment: Not available/surrounded by residential uses

Figure B.5: Brickworks Lane, Northcote

Size: 6.5ha Zoning: Public Use 6 Current Use: Parkland/Northcote Regional Tip Surrounding uses: North – Residential; East – Residential; South – Residential; West – Parkland Assessment: Not available/surrounded by residential uses

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

Figure B.6: Dennis Street/St David Street, Northcote

Size: 0.2ha Zoning: Public Use 6 Current Use: Community Centre Surrounding uses: North – Residential; East – Residential; South – Parkland; West – Parkland Assessment: Not available/ too small/ surrounded by residential uses

Figure B.7: High Street/Westbourne Grove, Northcote

Size: 0.3ha Zoning: Public Use 6 Current Use: Northcote Town Hall Surrounding uses: North – Commercial; East – Commercial; South – Commercial; West – Residential Assessment: Not available/surrounded by residential/commercial uses

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

Figure B.8: Hopetoun Street/Separation Street, Northcote

Size: 0.22ha Zoning: Public Use 6 Current Use: Open Space Surrounding uses: North – Parkland; East – Residential; South – Residential; West – Parkland Assessment: Too small and close interface with residential areas

Figure B.9: Mitchell Street, Northcote

Size: 0.15ha Zoning: Public Use 6 Current Use: Public Car Park Surrounding uses: North – Metropolitan Fire Brigade/Residential; East – Residential; South – Residential; West – Residential Assessment: Not available/ too small/ surrounded by residential uses

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

Figure B.10 Separation Street, Northcote

Size: 0.7ha Zoning: Public Use 6 Current Use: Community Facilities (Darebin Health / Northcote Library) Surrounding uses: North – Commercial; East – Education; South – Education/Residential; West – Commercial/ Residential Assessment: Not available / some interface with residential areas

Figure B.11 Carawa Drive, Reservoir

Size: 5ha Zoning: Public Use 6 Current Use: Darebin Council City Services Works Depot (including Darebin Animal Pound) Surrounding uses: North – Industrial; East – Industrial/Parkland; South – Industrial; West – Industrial Assessment: Refer to assessment in section 5.1.1 of this report

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

Figure B.12: Edwardes Street, Reservoir

Size: 0.4ha Zoning: Public Use 6 Current Use: Reservoir Civic Centre Surrounding uses: North – Commercial; East – Commercial; South – Residential; West – Residential Assessment: Not available / surrounded by residential / commercial uses

Figure B.13: Hughes Parade/Asquith Street/Sturdee Street, Reservoir

Size: 0.6ha Zoning: Public Use 6 Current Use: Merrilands Community Centre Surrounding uses: North – Residential; East – Residential; South – Residential; West – Residential Assessment: Not available / surrounded by residential uses

CITY OF DAREBIN AND CITY OF MORELAND ANI MAL SHELTER FEASIBIL I T Y S T U D Y

Figure B.14: Ralph Street, Reservoir

Size: 0.6ha Zoning: Public Use 6 Current Use: Reservoir Library and Public Car Park Surrounding uses: North – Residential; East – Residential; South – Commercial; West – Residential Assessment: Not available / surrounded by residential/commercial uses

Figure B.15: Robinsons Road, Reservoir

Size: 0.26ha Zoning: Public Use 6 Current Use: Community Facilities (Preston Parents and Citizens Youth Club, Regent Centre, Darebin City Catering) Surrounding uses: North – Residential; East – Residential; South – Railway Reserve; West – Railway Reserve Assessment: Not available/ too small / close interface with residential areas