Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout49-Animal Control (2) el1 OF SAN BERNARDll ~ - REQUE~ r FOR COUNCIL ACt IN Dept: Director of Animal REC'O.-A~tOFthimal Control Department ~elp 23 M~ n ~nailabili ty Policy Control \999 V(. I ~~ From: Debi C. Biggs Date: September 23, 1988 Synopsis of Previous Council action: 6/9/88 Legislative Review Committee requested the Animal Advisory Commission review the animal "Availability Policy". 7/21/88 Legislative Review Committee recommended the animal "Availability Policy" be placed on the consent calendar for ratification. 8/15/88 City Council voted to send the policy back to the Animal Advisory Commission for re-consideration. Recommended motion: That the recommendation of the Animal Advisory Commission to endorse the current availability policy of the City of San Bernardino Animal Control Department which has resulted in improved standards of operation, improved staff morale, increased adoptions, improved relations with the San Bernardino Community and increased public trust and confidence, be approved. qJ~,{,{" ~/ Signature _) ~?L-.' Contact person: Debi C. Biqqs Phone: 384-5271) Supporting data attached: Ward: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. Description) Finance: Council Notes: Agenda Item No. tr ..,,,.n?f\2 CI' _ OF SAN BERNARDI~ _~ - REQUEIL r FOR COUNCIL AC1 IN STAFF REPORT At the request of the Legislative Review Committee on June 9, 1988, the Animal Advisory Commission met on July 20, 1988. The Commission submitted the attached report (#1) unanimously endorsing the existing availability policy and urging Council to adopt an ordinance prohibiting the sale or donation of animals for research because it is counterproductive to an effective animal control program. The Legislative Review Committee stated that although it is not the City Council's function to lIapprove or disapprovell department policy, the policy would be placed on the consent calendar because it was a controversial issue. Ray Quinto of the V.A. Medical Center suggested that the City adopt an ordinance prohibiting the sale of animals if there was to be a restrictive policy. On August 15, 1988, the Council voted to send the policy back to the Animal Advisory Commission and have the Commission report back to the Council on October 3 with suggestions on loosening the restrictions for the sale of animals to research. The Animal Advisory Commission met on September 14, 1988. Those members present were: Dr. Harold Chandler (Mayor), Elaine Grace (Flores), Terri Overcast (Reilly), Mar90 Tannenbaum (Minor), and Judy Bliss (Maudsley). Absent were Skip Herbert (Miller) and Dave Light (Mayor). There are no appointments repre- senting Estrada or Pope-Ludlum. After over 1~ hours of discussion, the following motion was made: That the City Council vote to officially endorse the current availability policy of the City of San Bernardino Animal Control Department because of improved standards of operation, improved staff morale, increased adoptions, improved relations with the San Bernardino community and increased public trust and confidence which are all direct results of the current policy. The vote--Ayes: Chandler, Grace, Bliss, Tannenbaum. Noes: Overcast. Motion carri ed 4 to 1. Overcast wanted to explain her no vote. She stated she morally did not want to override the citizens' vote in June, 1986 on Advisory Measure HH and felt the policy could be loosened in a few of the areas. It is the opinion of the other Commission members and of Jo Orman, President of the Humane Society of San Bernardino Valley, that selling animals from our facility to research does more harm than good to the department as a public agency. Since the restrictive policy went into effect over two years ago, the adoption and redemption rates have substantially increased, staff morale has improved, and the use of our facilty has increased. Time limitations and revenue: When there were no restrictions on the sale of animals, the department employed two Animal Health Technicians. This was reduced to one AHT by Council for the 87-88 budget. Since an AHT must ,accompany research personnel, another Shelter worker must be pulled from his/her regular duties to cover some ~f the duties of the AHT while the AHT accomodates the researchers. Aside from loss of work productivity, it cost the City $4803.79 in AHT salary alone to be with research personne1--one third of the research revenue. If one takes into consideration the Shelter Office Specialists' time 75-0264 -2- to complete the paperwork and prepare the monthly invoices, the actual revenue is further reduced. There are other, more productive means of generating revenue. The recently approved citation system will produce more than twice the amount of revenue than produced in 86-87 by sales to research. There is no projected revenue from research sales in the FY 88-89 budget. Staff opinion: The staff at the Shelter is always asking, n\~hy don't they ask us what we think?" So we did. The results were as follows: Would you bring a lost dog you'd found to a shelter that releases unclaimed animals to research? 54.5% said no. If you could not keep your own pet and brought it to a shelter that released animals for research, would you sign a form giving permission for your pet to be used for experimentation? 72.7% said no. Would you donate money to an animal shelter that voluntarily sold or gave pets to research? 54.5% said no. If there were a stray dog in your neighborhood, would you be less likely to report it if you knew it might end up in a research lab- oratory? Evenly divided. As an employee: Do you think our public image has improved since we stopped selling? 81.7% yes. (One employee was no, one employee recently employed and "doesn1t know"). Do you think we should sell animals to research? 72.7% no. Should the City Council vote to prohibit the selling of animals to research? 63.6% yes. When asked, "00 you believe in, support, or are in favor of medical research?" 28.6% of those that said yes also answered yes to the question above. Of the 453 cities in the State of California, only two city agencies (San Bernardino and Hollister in Northern California) sell animals to research. Holli- ster1s sales have decreased 82.5% in the last year. Our Shelter has not sold an animal since March of 1987. The issue before you is not one of debating whether research using animals is beneficial or not but rather, should our trust and confidence asa municipal agency deteriorate. The Animal Advisory Commission feels it is not the responsi- bility of the City of San Bernardino government to supply shelter' animals for . private enterprise. But it is the responsibiltty of the City to provide a credible animal control program that has the trust, confidence and support of the citizens as a viable public agency. Dr. Harold Chandler, Chairman of the Animal Advisory Commission will be present to discuss the issue further. July 21, 1988 At a meeting of the Animal Advisory Commission on July 20, 1 988, the " a v a i I 'a b i lit Y pol icy" and i n t ern a I p r c. c e d u res 0 f animals for res~arch was discussed. Loren Mc Queen of the City Attorney's officr stated that Advisory Measure HH was a voter opinion "havins no legally control I ing effect over the legislative acts of the Mayor and Common Council." She also stated our availability policy is not in violation of any law or ordinance therefore, no "circumvention" of the law is taking place. We are not "bound" to sell, nor are we prohibited. If we do sel I, the fees are set by resolution, as is the process if both a research ins~itition and a private citizen wishes to obtain the same animal. / The fol lowing are the recommendations of the Animal Advisory Commission: Motion: ,That the City Council vote to officially endorse the current availability and adoption pc.Jicies of the City of San Bernardin~ Animal Control Department. Motion carried. Motion: That the City Counci I adopt the sale or donation of any animal experimental, or teaching purposes. an ordinance prohibiting for reasearch, testing, Motion carried. It was agreed that the sale of impounded animal shelter is counter-productive to an control program. 'a n i m a I s fro m 0 u r effective animal Respectfully Submitted, DR. HAROLD CHANDLER Chairman, Animal Advisory Commission \. .:tt.i ~, .~ .