Residents cite euthanasia, lack of veterinary care and unspent grants at San Bernardino animal shelter

Several residents used the San Bernardino City Council public‑comment period on March 5 to describe repeated problems at the city animal shelter and to urge council action to improve care, transparency and use of restricted grant funds.

Speakers described a range of concerns: animals arriving at the shelter pregnant, what they characterized as inadequate intake medical screening, perceived indifference from shelter staff, and a need for a full‑time relief veterinarian to perform routine spay/neuter work and to support a mobile clinic. "I urge you to get a full time veterinarian doctor or tech at the shelter at your earliest convenience," Lillo Sherwood said after describing adopting a dog that was pregnant and later producing eight puppies; Sherwood later corrected that the shelter currently has part‑time veterinary care but said that is insufficient.

Resident Lydia Savala provided documents and a summary of restricted grant agreements she said total $3,200,000 in funding for animal‑service work, including a $1,100,000 item and a $1,500,000 item with a $300,000 component. She said the restricted funds were intended to support community spay/neuter services and a mobile veterinary clinic and that, based on the documentation she provided, the city had not used some funding as described in those agreements. "How many were spayed and neutered through this program? None, because that money was spent on the shelter animals," she said, and urged use of a relief veterinarian and deployment of the mobile van into neighborhoods.

Other speakers alleged poor intake practices, too few euthanasia safeguards, and overcrowding conditions. Georgia (no last name given) said animals were "starving," referenced Penal Code section 597s in discussing alleged illegal dumping or mistreatment, and urged the council to return grant and trust funds to animal care where appropriate. Marcus Asa Sims and other residents also recounted rescues and community efforts to assist animals when they said the city did not.

Several speakers asked council members and staff to provide accountability for how animal‑service grant dollars have been spent, to prioritize hiring full‑time veterinary staff or consistent contracted veterinary services, and to deploy the mobile clinic for spay/neuter and basic medical care in neighborhoods. Speakers proposed funding options including city funds, grants, or partnerships with local veterinary schools.

City staff did not offer a detailed response during the public‑comment period; several council members and the interim city manager had previously acknowledged the shelter and mobile clinic during other presentations but no formal council action was taken at the March 5 meeting. Speakers said they would continue to press the council for follow‑up and documentation.