Clearlake City Council votes to have city provide animal control services

CLEARLAKE, Calif. – The city of Clearlake will move toward assuming all duties related to animal control, as directed by the city council during its regular meeting on Thursday night.

The city's current contract for certain animal control services with Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals of Clear Lake, or the SPCA, terminates on Oct. 1 at the behest of that organization, which has said it could no longer afford to offer the services for less than $1,700 a month.

“I think this is the only way we can afford to go,” Councilwoman Joyce Overton said.

Staff's recommendation identifies both short- and long-term solutions for providing animal control services in the city. 

The short-term strategy involves modifying the existing Public Works warehouse facility near the airport property. Half the storage area will provide for temporary shelter for the animal control facility. The city's temporary shelter was once located on the property. 

Folsom said approximately 10 new kennels will be purchased to replace the existing kennels; about 24 existing feline shelter will be reused.

Coverage, seven days a week, will be provided by existing staff including the field officer and Public Works personnel. Folsom said it is anticipated that volunteers will augment city staff while staff is on-site.

The long-term solution involves acquiring property to develop an animal control facility. 

Folsom said the city is currently investigating various properties that would be appropriate. 

He said initial estimates to purchase and build a sufficient facility, not including land, appear to be less than $250,000. 

The facility will be temperature-controlled and could house a significant number of dogs and cats, he said.

“Staff believes that the level of service that could be provided to the public would be significantly higher due to the closer proximity of the facility to the citizenry and the field services officer, as well as the city's ability to control the number of animals and types of animals that are being held,” Folsom stated. “By bringing it in-house the city can also administer administrative penalties that will both help to deter negligent pet ownership and help to pay for the cost of the program.”

The manner in which to provide animal control services has been a longstanding issue in the city involving contracting for services with the county of Lake and SPCA, and discussions that included the possibility of bringing services in-house. 

In the face of rising contract costs with the county, which were in excess of $200,000, the city in 2009 assumed the intake portion of animal control, while continuing to contract for shelter services. Per the agreement, which was not exceed $75,000 annually, the county only accepted animals from authorized personnel; animals delivered by residents of Clearlake were not accepted.

The 2009 strategy focused primarily on animals posing a danger to the public. It involved the creation of a new position and cross-training of another within the police department; the purchasing of an animal control vehicle and the necessity of building a permanent shelter facility was identified. 

In addition, the strategy was reliant on the assistance of volunteers as well as the Animal Coalition of Lake County. Several members of the organization and the animal welfare community opposed the plan in 2009.

In 2013, the city moved again to contract for facility services with SPCA at a cost of $20,000 per year. 

City Manager Greg Folsom said SPCA underestimated its costs to provide the service. Organization representatives met with the city several times in attempt to negotiate a higher fee. 

An agreement was not reached and Folsom said the SPCA provided a 90-day notice of termination on June 30, as required by the contract.

Staff presented to the council three other feasible options which it had been developing since receiving the notice of termination. 

Folsom said not providing animal control services is not an option as state law requires minimum services that include dealing with vicious dogs and animals that are a roadway hazard be provided.

The three additional options involved contracting services with:

– SPCA for $5,000 per month with additional costs for dog bite holds. The contract would be temporary to assist the city until January. Services would be limited to 30 dogs and 15 sick/injured cats per month. Folsom cited inefficiencies in the city's animal control officer driving to Kelseyville to deliver animals. Citizens also would have to make the drive to redeem their animals. Redemption fees, he said, are retained by the SPCA. 

– County of Lake for all-inclusive animal control services. The contract would include only required pick-ups and not stray animals. It would eliminate the city's field officer position. Citizens would have to go to Lakeport to redeem their animals and again redemption fees are retained by the county. The county's optional “Community Cat Program” would cost an additional $10,000 and is for drop-off only and feral cats are not allowed. Folsom said the city was near an agreement with the county in 2013 for $145,000 but the number was still being revised upward when the city contracted with SPCA. He said staff did not pursue an updated estimate because of the significant limitation inherent in the contract.

– County of Lake to provide animal control facilities only; the city would retain its field officer. Folsom said the proposal appears to be less expensive than the SPCA proposal, even considering the additional cost for the community cat program. However, he said, while the county will accept cats for dropoff, it will not pick up cats. Additionally, he said, there is a significant restriction of no more than six dogs at a time during the three-day holding period.

Folsom said the current budget for animal control is $89,550; estimated net annual operating cost is $147,800, resulting in an additional annual cost of $58,250, at a minimum.

He said there is little flexibility in the current budget, which will be maintained by: 

– Having existing staff manage the interim animal control facility, along with volunteers;

– Keeping the number of animals impounded and the length of the impound down to a level that keeps the program on budget;

– Using the $1,667 per month savings from the termination of the SPCA contract to cover other expenses;

– Building a revenue stream to offset additional expenses;

– Finding a creative way of financing the new facility so that it does not impact the general fund.

Folsom said the bond on the city's senior center building will be paid-off in July 2016. The bond payment of $117,204 is made in equal measure in January and July of each year. The final payment in July will be $58,602. 

“Therefore, $58,602 will be freed up from the general fund next fiscal year, and $117,204 on an annual basis thereafter that could be used to cover the increased cost of services,” he stated.

Members of the Animal Coalition and other animal advocates again voiced opposition to bringing services in-house, citing inadequate staffing and facility accommodations. 

Animal Coalition President Rita Doyle said cost estimates were too low and not feasible for success. She said $1,600 was never enough and the city should pay the SPCA more to continue services.

Linda Pallas recommended a more aggressive approach to gaining better compliance in requiring pet owner to spay/neuter their animals. 

She also addressed staffing levels. “It takes a lot more people than you have on staff right now,” Pallas said.

Another Animal Coalition member, Elaine Somit, emphasized the city's feral cat problem. 

“Whatever action is taken, you cannot ignore the (feral cat) problem. The feral cat problem has become exponential here,” she said.

The council was unanimous in providing direction to staff to move toward moving animal control services in-house.

Email reporter Denise Rockenstein at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .