Exasperated by what he believes are debatable costs that keep showing up in the projected, constantly growing, budget for hiring Culver City’s first fulltime animal control officer, City Councilman Chris Armenta said this afternoon the new officer could be in place by December.
“That is our goal,” he said.
Whether to plunge into a full-service animal control plan, under the supervision of the Police Dept., is a community-wide argument that has raged for several years.
Proponents contend that Culver City animals not only are mistreated when removed to the County shelter in Carson, the inconvenience factor is enormous. They say the delay time needlessly punishes the animal and sometimes becomes hazardous.
Supporters believe it will be self-supporting. They are confident an increase in licensing fees will cover the annual expenses.
Opponents say that the annual cost will run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, especially since Culver City would be starting without a shelter of its own available, and that City Hall cannot come close to affording the new expense.
Mr. Armenta is an ardent advocate for a program that has driven a wedge between two factions on the Council, and perhaps in the community, too, mainly because the annual budget, so far, remains undetermined.
Estimates have run the gamut, and no one has stepped forward with a number accepted by both hardening sides.
About Those Costs
Councilman Armenta acknowledges that expenses are likely to run past the $129,000 figure cited at a June meeting when the Council hesitatingly approved a two-year pilot program.
How far past, he is not sure.
When told that projections around City Hall are being pegged at $350,000 a year and upwards, Mr. Armenta said the number was “ridiculous.”
“I am an accountant,” said the first-year Councilman. “I know the difference between hard costs and soft costs. Often, the difference lies in interpretation.
“Of course there will be startup costs. But I am certain that in the end they will be closer to the amount that we discussed in June.
“The costs will not be nearly as great as people opposed to this idea will tell you. I do not understand the logic of those who say we don’t need this service.
“I have been on the Council now for four months, and we frequently approve of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for all kinds of things.
“Animal control is such a fundamental service. I don’t get it, why people are against it.”
Breaking the Tie
Vice Mayor Gary Silbiger and Mr. Armenta are on the Council subcommittee that is seeking to smoothly introduce what they argue will be a self-sustaining service.
Councilman Mehaul O’Leary broke a logjam on the dais two months ago with a compromise proposal, that animal control be tried on a conditional basis, which did not thrill either side.
Mr. Armenta and the Vice Mayor pushed vigorously to win approval for making animal control a permanent program. But as Mr. Armenta noted, “we couldn’t overcome the tremendous pressure to make it a pilot program.”
The Other Side
Mayor Scott Malsin and Councilman Andy Weissman believe the costs will be a multiple of the original estimate of a little more than $100,000.
“A lot of emotion has been put into animal control,” Mr. Armenta said. “But this is a service that the community not only needs but will benefit from.”
He is disappointed that transferring responsibility for animal control from the much criticized County to Culver City has encountered so much resistance.
But he does not feel hurried to get the program mounted or responsible for convincing his rivals . “I believe the concept will sell itself,” Mr. Armenta said.
