Banning’s Animal Shelter Issue

Banning , CA

12.04.24

Banning , CA

Past, Present, and Future

The City of Banning is currently experiencing an animal issue. Stray and lost dogs are increasingly running at large in the city. This is a result of not having an animal shelter in Banning, CA.

This was not always the case.

On April 13, 2021, the City of Banning approved a 5-year $60,000 annual contract with ARE Animal Rescue. The city would be terminating the current Riverside County contract costing $325,000 annually.

The ARE contract was to run through June 30, 2026. The city would also provide shelter facilities for $1 a year and would also provide utilities at roughly $10,000 annually. ARE Animal Services a 501C3 would be providing roughly 13 + services. (Impound care, Adoptions, Euthanasia, Spay& Neuter) just to name a few.

http://banning.ca.us/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/2454

page 39

So what changed?

Members of the public filed a complaint about the shelter. Citing “discourteous interactions with members of the public.” This initiated a review of the contract and an inspection of the shelter on 10.23.23 at 3:00 pm by City Manager Doug Schulze, Assistant City Manager Laurie Sampson, and Communications Manager Anthony Riley.

For the majority of the report it is labeled as " fair" and in compliance with a note commenting " some outdoor kennels for overflow are on dirt until a number of impounds can be reduced. It should be noted that ARE is not responsible for providing shelter kennel capacity says the Staff report.

The main complaint was, “discourteous interactions with members of the public" in the report it stated that efforts are being made to address the complaints.

One of the contract agreements was to provide annual audits, which based on the report was non-compliant. This was also a constant argument with Sheri Flynn and the City Manager as to why the Contract was not enforced with required audits.

Citing a Record Gazette article and quoting the City Manager,

“I don’t believe an audit is actually necessary. We are paying them an agreed upon amount to operate the facility. How they raise additional money [referring to ARE’s operations outside of Banning] and how they use that money is an issue between them, the IRS, the state and the agency that oversees their business,” Schulze answered. “What I’m concerned with is the amount we pay them and the service we get.”

On a November 14, 2023, presentation, a link to financial reports was available. For the record, the total contributed income for ARE based on their report for 2021 is $183,861.51 with a Gross profit of $630,771.18. An IRS form 990 also aligns with those numbers for 2021.

http://banning.ca.us/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/2928

page 40

https://www.recordgazette.net/news/local/banning-to-terminate-animal-shelter-contract-with-are/article_af4251c8-3573-11ef-a807-d72e36257167.html

Moving Forward.

On December 12, 2023, the City of Banning voted 4-0 to terminate the contract with ARE and authorized the City Manager to negotiate a contract with Riverside County with no other alternatives at the time. The council also approved a 180 day notice of termination to ARE on Jan 9th,2024.

On May 21, 2024, the Riverside County Animal Control gave a presentation on the services it can provide to the City of Banning. Animal Shelter alternatives/ options were also part of the discussion on the agenda.

The Ad Hoc committee which was established on Jan. 9th to develop alternatives for shelter & animal control services and consists of City Councilwoman Sheri Flynn and Mayor Pro Tem Rick Minjares, recommended the following.

1. A temporary agreement with Riverside County (approx. 1 year) pending presentation;

2. A Needs Assessment of the current animal shelter facility:

3. Utilize current animal control officers to be part of the oversight and operations of the facility in the interim condition and for the future;

4. Review option of hiring in-house staff to operate facility;

5. Review if hiring another 501 c (3) management company is a viable option with on-site city staff as oversight;

6. Establish maximum occupancy of the facility with a 10% contingency for emergencies (all overages surrendered to Riverside County);

7. Grant funding for: new improvements, equipment, personnel and operations

At the end of the presentation Riverside County Spokesperson advised that "if" approved it can have a 60 day turnaround but not promised.

https://d2kbkoa27fdvtw.cloudfront.net/banningca/e1cae7c8bcb348b085b2998c01732ee70.pdf

https://banningca.granicus.com/player/clip/78?view_id=1&redirect=true

November 12, 2024

City council meeting and subject, Consider animal shelter options.

There was an article published on this date that focused on the arguments by parties in the council . Since that date there has been debate on consideration of recalls on certain elected officials , meanwhile the finger pointing continues , a majority of the people involved are to blame . We will focus on the main issue here , the animal shelter .

City Manager Doug Schulze states that Riverside County has not been responsive as of July 22, 2024, and that no contract has been provided with proposals the city wants. Riverside County is at 100% capacity and is currently being sued. They've advised city members that cities need to come together and establish their shelters. Possibly a " San Gorgonio Pass Shelter "

While at the meeting, the City manager states that he has established a City in-house proposal with the intent to utilize the former fire station (5261 W. Wilson St.) as an animal control and shelter services. It can hold at a rough estimate 45-60 large dogs and has adequate room, parking, and a large lawn. There is no room for livestock and once it meets capacity there is no proposed plan as of yet. The in-house committee established for the proposal also voiced their concerns for the animals suffering in result of no available animal shelter. This includes Gale Ousley, Beth Barnhart, and Robyn Brantly. They mentioned scenarios where dogs have been abandoned, possibly murdered, and the results of no assistance. 400 unverified signatures were also given to the city. This is from a petition that is advocating for a no-kill shelter in the city of Banning.

The in-house proposal is estimated at $690,000 in year one and $500,00 in year two. This cost estimate does not include a potential contribution from Morongo Band of Mission. In comparison, if Riverside County approved an annual contract, it would be $680,000 annually.

https://d2kbkoa27fdvtw.cloudfront.net/banningca/a583363bf592d4417dd098a7d7220acc0.pdf

https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=3904314&repo=r-edac489c

page 27 for unverified signatures and different zip codes

12.03.24 On a phone call with City Manager Schulze, he stated that these are all options and he does not know what the plans are for the new council moving in. There hasn't been any money allocated as well. When asked about the signatures he said they aren't verified unless the council directs him to verify. His demeanor is very proactive on finding a solution for an animal shelter since Riverside has not responded since July.

It's December 4th 2024 and after reading all that, I'm sure you have a headache as well. We still don't have an animal shelter, and stray and lost dogs are increasing. Banning Animal Control officers deal with multiple calls a day. Some can get handled through the phone but on average 50% of the calls are being unable to assist because of no location to take the animals.

This is where Animal Advocates, Small Rescues, and foster homes have been stepping up to the plate. Usually, for them, it'll start with a phone call, text, or a post. It can be from a random person or even Animal control advising of an animal, usually a dog in need of help. They then take it upon themselves to rescue the animal. Once they find the animal, they quarantine it to make sure it doesn't spread disease. A scan for a microchip is a must, followed by an assessment of age, sex, and type (breed). An online PawBoost report is also done to spread the word. Intake can be very overwhelming since it requires out-of-pocket money to maintain the animal meanwhile they find the rightful owner or a foster home. Many of these groups can be found on Social media, primarily Facebook.

As we move forward in search for a solution we have to identify the pros and cons of having an animal shelter. Pros can be that we as a community are being proactive in trying to solve an ongoing crisis that isn't getting better by the day. Just today I heard of 5 pitbull puppies dumped, 2 dogs left stranded inside a cage. I myself have witnessed how dogs are left behind, in cages, and animal control can't do much about it. Cons, can be, will we become the dumping grounds for animal abandonment if we push forward with an animal shelter? We need to look at the finances being proposed and get involved in the decision-making. We cannot have out-of-state or different countries contribute to the decisions we as a community should make. We need to make sure petitions made are in the best interest of Banning and not out of state or zip code. This doesn’t mean we need to push current petitions away , but maybe research and get involved locally with it .

A no-kill shelter is usually what folks tend to look into, mainly in favor of not euthanizing an animal. In reality, a no-kill shelter is based on a 90% placement rate. No-kill does not mean no euthanasia, usually, the other 10% faces the difficult decision of being euthanized. The 90/10 ratio isn't governed and can fluctuate.

https://www.animalhumanesociety.org/news/what-does-it-mean-be-no-kill

For record outcome for Riverside county for 10/24

https://rcdas.org/sites/g/files/aldnop301/files/2024-11/Oct%202024%20Outcome%20Statistics.pdf

Looking into 501Cs is also an option and in animal rescue, there is a high donor rate of $$$. Unfortunately with the previous outcome we had, we might not be favorable. This does not mean we as Banning cannot become one and options are available. A city and community watchdog should be implemented on any 501C3 involved .

In conclusion, I hope having provided a brief timeline, brings awareness and everyone up to date. We can all get involved in advocating for a solution with our new City Leaders. This should be a priority, we can all agree that a solution needs to come soon and be done properly. Maybe we need to look into Short-term, and long-term solutions and look at how other cities have implemented their solution. It's definitely not a one-way street.