HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-06-2023_Special Meeting_Open Session_Item 1_Betit, Cecile1
December 6, 2023
Mayor Helen Tran
City Council Members:
Theodore Sanchez
Sandra Ibarra
Juan Figueroa
Fred Shorett
Ben Reynoso
Kimberly Calvin
Damon Alexander
Dear San Bernardino Mayor Trans and City Council Members:
Recognizing the complexity of the maters involved, I write to suggest that the scale of the following
agenda item begs for input from San Bernardino ci�zens and serious discussion rather than a prompt
response to the request for immediate ac�on by the Mayor and City Council on December 6, 2023:
Regional Partnership for Animal Services Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California:
1. Authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute participation agreements with the Cities of
Colton, Fontana and Rialto to house animals at the shelter located at 333 Chandler Place in the
City of San Be[rnardino]
2. Provide staff direction on proposed staffing and site improvements needed to accommodate
additional partner cities, and
3. Adopt Resolution 2023-188 Authorizing the City Manager to take the steps necessary to
establish a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation named “The Friends of San Bernardino
Animal Services Foundation”.
The “Regional Partnership” proposal is being put forward under the cover of urgency. Its present and
future importance mandate that �me be alloted for a thorough study not only of the proposal, but
also its implica�ons and consequences. While there are many more items to be addressed, in the
interest of your �me, I offer the following brief comments:
1. Does this proposal serve the goals that City Council established in 2019 for a shelter that would
take good care of San Bernardino animals and become a center for the community with educa�on,
ac�vi�es and involvement?
2, Given its current significant budget and grant monies, have the Mayor and City Council reviewed
the shelter and staff performance. When Ms. Kris�ne Watson was contracted for the Director of
Animal Services posi�on, certain goals were put in place. Have these been met? To what level of
sa�sfac�on?
2
3. Riverside was considered a state-of-the-art regional facility with a forward-looking model for
taking care of the animals in its area. Have the reasons for its decisions not to con�nue regional
service been studied and measured in light of the current proposal presented to the Mayor and
City Council? The ques�ons being raised as to why LA County’s touted efforts have fallen short
may have relevance for San Bernardino. In spite of strong goals to reduce intakes—more dogs are
entering the LA system. More dogs are being killed.
San Bernardino County has just implemented a wide scale educa�on and spay and neuter effort.
Throughout the country, enforced spay and neuter have made the long-term difference in
numbers of stray and surrendered animals. Can this effort going forward change the need for scale
in shelters in San Bernardino County? Has City Council studied how emphasis and educa�on with
successful spay and neuter in San Bernardino could change the need and life span for a long-term
large regional facility? How would such a change affect ROI on San Bernardino’s investment?
4. Has the impact been studied for how adding Grand Terrace and Loma Linda dogs affected the
performance of the shelter with its expanded current staff? While not shared publicly, recent
reports have noted SBC’s euthanasia rate increasing from 10% to 20%. Concern was expressed
early on that calendar days rather than business days as stated in the California code were being
used for availability. Concern is rising daily at the number of animals being killed closer to their
available date. 19 dogs are on a kill list for today, Wednesday, December 6. (Thankfully 2 were
saved yesterday). California allows euthanasia for behavior and medical. Staff can be quite crea�ve
in giving death warrants to dogs.
5. A careful review needs to be made of the proposal in terms of both present and future to avoid
errors in interpreta�on and findings. For example, while presently the public is told that rabies
shots cannot be given at SBC because of lack of veterinarian services, it is stated on page 3 of the
proposal perhaps in error, under “Veterinary Services Unit... The Department currently has 1
Veterinarian, 2 Registered Veterinary Technicians and 1 Veterinary Assistant in the veterinary
services unit.”
6. The proposal does not indicate the local groups with whom it was shared, discussed and revised.
What recommenda�ons were made by the volunteer advisors on the Animal Control Commission
to the Mayor and City Council for the proposal?
7. Has the public been invited to respond to the proposal and also to suggest to shelter staff, the
Commission, Mayor and City Council ways of incen�vizing spay and neuter, chipping, licensing as
well as keeping stray dogs home?
8. While the Mayor and some members of City Council were not serving in their capaci�es in 2019,
some members may recall the love that many in their city showed for con�nuing SBC as a locally
contained shelter and not moving to Riverside as the then mayor encouraged.
The systemic scale of the dynamic change proposed involves both financial and social risk to the
City. While it reads in comfor�ng measures of numbers, there are many unknowns that deserve
further study. What impact will the non-profit status have on San Bernardino cons�tuencies?
Many of the changes proposed will involve living beings. The complexi�es involve a great deal
more than size of facili�es and staffing. Staffing will rarely be as linear as alloca�ng 15-minute
segments for animals in such a stressful environment.
3
So many though�ul ci�zens have been involved these recent years in building a future for which
residents of the City of San Bernardino can be proud. It seems City taxpayers and voters would
appreciate the City Council’s reassurance of further study to respect their interest and that of the
animals involved, as well as to reassure that future concerns for the City of San Bernardino’s
common good are served.
Thank you for your considera�on.
Respec�ully submited,
Cecile G. Be�t Ph.D.
Independent Researcher
Volunteer Networker for SBC Dogs since January, 2016