Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Barstow council orders 30–45 day review of animal services after public concern over costs and capacity
Summary
After extensive public comment and debate, the Barstow City Council directed the city manager to produce two analyses — a feasibility study of a city-run animal services department and a comparative review of the Barstow Humane Society — and to return with findings in 30–45 days and a public workshop.
The Barstow City Council on a unanimous consensus moved to have the city manager conduct two separate analyses — one examining the feasibility of operating a city-run Animal Services Department and a second assessing the Barstow Humane Society’s present capacity to provide the city’s needed animal services — and to return to the council within 30–45 days with results and a public workshop.
Councilwoman Rose framed the issue directly during discussion: “Should the city be in the business of running an animal shelter or should we partner with the Humane Society?” She and Councilmember Cruz had asked staff to revisit the earlier decision to move toward a city-run shelter amid concerns about long-term sustainability and liability.
City staff presented four broad options for animal services: continue with a city-run department, pursue a contracting arrangement with an outside provider, review previously received proposals, or issue a new request for proposals. The City’s interim manager told the council that, meantime, Route 66 is continuing to provide shelter intake services on an interim basis and that the city is limited in how many animals it can accept at present.
Public commenters and local advocates urged caution and greater collaboration. Cindy Tring, president of the Barstow Humane Society, said the society and the city can work together “regarding expectations needed to achieve the city's goals and also the Humane Society's needs to care for our animals.” Animal advocates and volunteers similarly urged the council to coordinate funding, training and clear expectations rather than immediately assuming full operational responsibility.
Several speakers raised sharp concerns about cost and transparency. Teresa Tank told the council she believes the city and interim city management “mislead both the council and public” and said roughly $800,000 has been spent in the process (Tank’s figure was presented as a claim during public comment and not verified during the meeting). Ted Weisman warned the council that “running your own shelter cost a hell of a lot of money,” arguing that a municipal operation could be far more expensive than a partnership with an established nonprofit.
City staff recommended, and the council approved by consensus, that the manager prepare the two analyses — one on city operation feasibility and one on the Humane Society’s present capabilities — and return with a workshop open to the public before any final approval. The council directed staff to identify sustainable funding sources as part of the study and asked that findings explain current interim service arrangements (shelter intake run by Route 66, police response for vicious animals) and any legal or budgetary limits to the city’s authority.
The decision marks a retreat from an earlier path toward immediately operating the shelter directly; it also formalizes the city’s intent to explore partnership models and to clarify what funding and facility work would be needed to meet code and operational expectations. The council asked for the analyses to be completed within 30–45 days and for a publicly noticed workshop before any binding decision.
The council did not adopt any fiscal appropriation or final contract at the meeting. The next procedural step is the delivery of the two analyses and a workshop in which staff, the Humane Society and community stakeholders will be able to ask questions and review funding options.
