The issue of local animal control is multifaceted and problematic both in the way Culver City must approach it and the way it is ultimately implemented.
In my opinion, the making of the recent Animal Control Officer decision as a two-year pilot program was based on emotion and on campaign promises, not on fiscal responsibility.
Those who voted for an animal control officer can still provide better animal control for Culver City, placate their supporters and at the same time maintain some semblance of fiscal responsibility.
The very term "animal control officer” connotes certain expectations by constituents and responsibilities by the city. Beyond the personnel issue, both the equipment required to complete the task and a place to temporarily house the animals are to be considered.
During my time on the animal control officer subcommittee of the City Council, I made calls to the following cities to corroborate the information given to me by city staff —
Manhattan Beach, El Monte Santa Monica, Hawthorne, El Segundo, Torrance and Beverly Hills.
El Monte would not seem to make sense since it is out on the East Side. However, I had heard they once had their own animal control officers, but had dropped the in-house department.
All of the cities used post-trained animal control officers.
All cities required a police response for misdemeanors or any search.
All cities had their officers attend a 40-hour animal control officer class.
All cities had more than one officer.
None of the other cities used police officers as an animal control officer.
Due to the cities having their own in-house animal control officer, the call volume increased. In fact, many cities reported that a steady increase in call volume eventually caused the response time to be almost the same as if the County were still the sole service provider. This problem manifested itself during off-hours when request for service was called in. The County responded when they could.
Many cities had the animal control officer under the police department. All reported a steady flow of minor injuries related to the duties of the officer.
All cities use outside veterinary services as an indeterminable additional cost at budget time.
Every city stated that having a relatively nearby shelter was paramount in providing adequate service.
Complaints from local animal activists did not cease when an in-house officer was hired.
Fees for services in all the cities I called did not come close to covering the program. The closest was 58 percent. Most of my calls were done last January and February.
In Culver City, the position will not go through the academy and will not be sworn. In fact, the officer will not carry a gun and will not even be able to use tranquilizer guns.
I might also ask which programs will be cut or which Culver City personnel will be laid off to pay for the position when the economic malaise hits. Given that the state probably will withhold the city’s money because of its own crisis — combined with the slowing economy, decreasing housing documentary taxes, sales tax revenues and increasing pension costs — the city may have to cut people or programs
When I contacted our Police Dept., I was told to expect that a city of our size should expect to have two animal control officers and a supervisor. In addition, this would be for part-time service. Animal control officers, with salary and benefits, earn about $80,000. supervisors about $90,000. These figures represent my best judgment. They include all City costs relating to the position.
Office space would be needed as well as temporary holding pens, equipment and vehicles. Some of these startup costs are onetime or capital expenses. They would not need to be budgeted every year.
The startup cost for even a modest program could exceed $400,000.
When Vice Mayor Gary Silbiger and I were on the Council sub-committee, we were tasked with coming up with a solution to the animal control problem. Most complaints I received while I was on the Council were not related to quality of service that the County provided in the field but rather about the Carson shelter arrangement and the issuing of licenses.
Few complaints were about field service. When I did look into them, most had merit. They related to the fact the County was stretched too thin from a manpower standpoint. Therefore, the County could not provide Culver City with the kind of service we require.
One of Culver City's responses was to take over the responsibility of issuing animal licenses. There have been a number of very successful vaccination clinics in the last few months. Many dog owners have had their pets inoculated and chipped at the Armory and have had a license issued from City Hall.
Gary and I were unsuccessful when, as a subcommittee, we contacted Santa Monica, El Segundo and Los Angeles to ask if we could utilize their shelters. The budget problem in Los Angeles City might make it more amenable to cutting a deal so that Culver City can use the new shelter in West Los Angeles.
It is not too late to ask the County if we could purchase the services of a trained County animal control officer whose sole responsibility would be Culver City.
In my opinion, that is the best solution. All of the training, supervision and equipment costs would be borne by the County and billed to us as a fixed-price package. We would have 40 hours of weekly coverage for canvassing, other animal control responsibilities, and we still would be covered by the County on off-hours. It would be the County’s responsibility to provide an officer 40 hours a week, regardless of vacation, injury or illness.
I do not believe that in these economic times a new city position should have been created. But with the decision already made, the next step should be to negotiate with the County so that we would have our own fulltime contracted officer.
We would have the benefit of a fixed cost contract. Certainly it would be more expensive than what we are paying now, but with the fiscally responsible attribute that it would be prix fixe. After a period of time, we could determine if the extra expense was worth the cost. At least then, some uncertainties would have been alleviated.
Mr. Corlin completed two four-year terms on the City Council last April.
