Clearlake >> At Thursday’s Clearlake City Council meeting, council members voted 4-1 to move all Clearlake Animal Control services in-house, with Councilman Bruno Sabatier dissenting.
The city previously contracted with the SPCA in Kelseyville for Animal Control services for $20,000 a year, but the organization decided to terminate the contract effective October 1. The rapidly approaching deadline meant the council needed to make a decision Thursday night.
City staff placed four options on the table. Clearlake could work with the SPCA until January 2016, as the organization offered to continue to provide services on a limited time basis, but at $5,000 per month, it was a significant cost increase to the city. The second option was to contract with the county for all-inclusive animal control services, but staff reports insisted the city could not afford this course of action. Option three was to contract with the county to provide animal control facilities, which would be cheaper than the SPCA but still presented a significant cost increase.
The final option, recommended by staff and approved by the city council, was to move all animal control services in-house. This means Clearlake will use the Public Works warehouse located at the airport as an interim facility for their animals while they build a permanent facility, which will take about two years to complete and will cost less than an estimated $250,000. This figure does not include the purchase or lease of property.
The temporary facility will house 10 dog kennels and 24 cat kennels. This option offers potential short-term cost savings at less than $3,000 a month and $67 per animal. The animal control officer, who currently takes animals to the Kelseyville SPCA each day, can save time and money since the facilities will be located in the city. Residents also won’t have to travel far to adopt or retrieve their animals.
However, there are potential downfalls to this option as well. The city will have to rely on existing employees and volunteers to care for the animals, hire additional staff for the long-term and, though there may be immediate cost savings, there may not be long-term financial benefits. But the biggest complaint, both from Councilman Sabatier and the pubic, surrounded the interim facility. Many felt it wouldn’t be adequate for housing animals.
Lake County Animal Coalition President Rita Doyle criticized the county for giving the SPCA $1,600 a month, which she claimed was not nearly enough for them to operate. If the city had allocated more funds, Doyle said, the SPCA may not have terminated their contract.
“If you went down to where you want to have it [the temporary facility], it’s a disgrace,” she said, adding that Clearlake has too many animals and the money the council plans to spend on Animal Control services in-house is not nearly enough. “You guys have to really get back to the table and figure out what’s good for the community and what’s good for the animals in this community.”
Linda Pallas, an animal coalition member, also felt that the interim facility was unrealistic. She said the SPCA was overcrowded and, as a result, had to euthanize many animals. “I can tell you now our facility here, if you create it, will become the same way,” she said.
But the majority of the council felt moving services in-house was their only option.
“I think this is the only way we can afford to go,” said Councilwoman Joyce Overton.
Councilman Russel Perdock agreed that while the Public Works warehouse wasn’t the perfect solution, it was the best of their options. “We have to start somewhere. We have a proposal on the table and we need to take action right away,” he said. “This is only one problem and we have limited funding to deal with it, so we need to get the most bang for our buck.”
Councilwoman Overton felt that the SPCA canceled their contract because of a lack of space, staff and funding. “I don’t think they have a choice any more than we have a choice today,” she said.
Councilman Sabatier, on the other hand, wondered why the city couldn’t stay with the SPCA until January and work on a permanent facility in the meantime. “We know they have a facility that is up to par,” he said. “Overpopulation in our kennels would be exceeded quickly. I hate to lower the level of service that we are offering to our community by going in-house.”
Other council members argued that four months is not enough time to create a permanent facility and it wouldn’t be cost-efficient to stay out-of-house when they would eventually need to go in-house anyway.
“We’re paying someone else to take care of our problem, we’re not taking care of ourselves,” said Mayor Denise Loustalot. “We are at this point where we have to do this. We have to settle down and understand the reality of not having the money to continue to pay places like the county.”
Another concern centered around the use of volunteers and city employees to take care of the animals. “We’re going to be coming into wintertime and it’s going to be cold and the maintenance guys, they’re not going to be dealing with animals,” said Matt Nelson, a Clearlake resident. “They’re not going to have time to clean up after animals and walk them or take care of them.”
Councilman Sabatier wanted to see Public Works employees taking care of the roads and parks, not worrying about animals in their warehouse. And as for relying on volunteers, the city has experience with that. For their visitor center, they decided to look to volunteers to run operations. “That isn’t working out like we thought it would,” Sabatier said. “I have concerns with relying on volunteers.”
The other council members said they had programs to utilize, such as Mendo-Lake Alternative Service, where they can obtain staff to take care of the animals. “As far as employees, we have lots of programs to use,” Councilwoman Overton said. “There are lots of other places we can get employees that cost us nothing.”
Mayor Loustalot felt that moving Animal Control services in-house was the best option for the future of Clearlake. “If we can do it, if it’s feasible, it’s a much better option in the long-term,” she said. “The more self-sustaining we can become as a city the better off we’re going to be in a long-term situation.”
Jennifer Gruenke can be reached at 900-2019.
