Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public raises animal shelter concerns as council considers $700,000 item; staff says partner cities billed quarterly
Summary
Public commenters criticized San Bernardino Animal Services operations and asked for detailed line items on a roughly $700,000 funding request. Housing and finance staff said partner cities are being billed quarterly and that the city will return with detailed billing figures.
Several residents used the April 2 council meeting to press the city on animal shelter operations and a funding request that public commenters described as lacking itemized detail. Speakers asked for explanations of spay/neuter strategy, intake and euthanasia rates, how shelter funds were spent, and whether partner jurisdictions were paying agreed contributions.
Nut graf: Lydia Savala, who said she compiled 2023/2024 intake figures, told council the shelter’s intake rose from about 7,028 animals in 2023 to roughly 8,000–9,000 in 2024 and that about one‑quarter of incoming animals arrived already dead and one‑quarter were euthanized. Residents also criticized an apparent lack of itemization for a roughly $700,000 line on the consent calendar and asked whether contracted or partner payments were current.
In response to a request by Council member Ibarra, city staff and finance said partner jurisdictions are being billed quarterly for the regional services agreement. Animal services staff described recent facility investments: a new customer service center, space for foster/volunteer programs and Lang Foundation staff, and 34 new kennels at the Chandler Place shelter. Staff said some purchases and supplies still need appropriation, which prompted the budget action on the consent calendar.
Council member Ibarra asked staff to provide council with a report showing how much partner cities have paid to date; staff agreed to return with those numbers. The council approved the underlying consent/budget action after discussion; the roll call showed one council member voting in opposition to that item (6–1 vote).
Ending: The public testimony captured substantial community frustration and detailed performance data from a resident analyst; staff committed to providing a fiscal reconciliation of billed and collected partner payments and to return with line‑item detail on the requested appropriation.
