Conference misery::feline_v1

5042.0. "Animal Control, Santa Clara County, CA" by CAPITN::CORDES_JA (Set Apt./Cat_Max=3..uh,I mean 4) Tue Nov 05 1991 02:57

    This is an article I found in the San Jose Mercury News on Sunday,
    November 3, 1991.  It is about the future of animal control in Santa 
    Clara County.  I apologize for the length but I thought it would be
    of interest to FELINERS, expecially those in the Santa Clara County
    area.  This article was in the Local/State section for those of you
    who get the San Jose Mercury News.
    
    
    
    SUPERVISORS POUNCING ON 13 CITIES FOR HELP IN FUNDING ANIMAL CONTROL
    by Stephen Robitaille, Mercury News Staff Writer
    
    
    Cats.  Thousands of cats.  More than 28,000 of them in 1990 alone, all
    of them curled up in the lap of Santa Clara County Animal Control.
    
    The county is singing the stray cat blues -- and if the board of
    supervisors gets its way, it won't be a free concert anymore for the 13
    cities that now get their strays, vicious dogs and spay-and-neuter
    programs handled at no charge.
    
    On Tuesday, the board is scheduled to formally announce its intent to
    set up a "service area," which would raise an estimated $5.3 million a
    year for animal control services by charging property owners $3.80 to
    $14 a year per parcel of land.  Residential parcels would be charged
    the maximum.
    
    The program, scheduled for public hearings and a final board vote in
    mid-December, would pump new life into an anemic animal control
    department, proponents say.
    
    We need this to turn us into a truly, highly professional and thorough
    organization," said Kathy Kleine, director of the animal control
    department.  "Now, we can only respond to calls. ... We are entirely
    demand-driven."
    
    So far, there has been one disenting voice.  It belongs to the San Jose
    Real Estate Board, which doesn't like the idea of financing a
    countywide service by harging only property owners.  Board members also
    don't like the fact that there is no cap on the proposed assessment.
    
    "If everybody pays for it, I have no problem with it," Real Estate
    Board President Kathy Davis said.
    
    The department itself has plenty of problems, a situation that pains
    its employees.  In 1976, for example, the county employed 56 animal
    control officers.  In the 1991 fiscal year, it had 22.
    
    This summer, traditionally the high season for animal control
    operations, there often were only two officers on duty for the entire
    county.
    
    At times there was a four- to five-day wait before officers could pick
    up a biting dog for rabies quarantine.
    
    At the county-run shelter in San Martin, supervisor Claudia Thompson
    said animal crowding forces her to euthanize stray cats after only two
    to three days.  She prefers one- to two-week holding periods, which
    would give the cats a better chance of being adopted.
    
    Thompson herself regularly went out on emergency calls this summer, on
    days when the regular South County animal control officer was assigned
    to fill in elsewhere.
    
    According to county estimates, the tax would allow response times to be
    cut in half.  Officers could patrol parks and neighborhoods with
    recurrent problems, such as roaming packs of dogs.
    
    The county, which has only about one-quarter of its dogs licensed, could
    double that figure.  And it could renovate the aging South County
    shelter, in addition to saving up for a new shelter to replace the
    Santa Clara facility run by the Humane Society of Santa Clara Valley.
    
    The Humane Society, which houses county-controlled animals under a
    contract, last year told the county it wants to get out of the county
    animal business -- which takes up a large part of its facilities -- and
    focus on its own programs.
    
    IT'S VOLUNTARY, SORT OF
    
    Joining the service area is voluntary for the 13 cities that now
    receive animal control services.  Santa Clara County is the only urban
    county in California that does not charge cities for animal control
    services, county officials said.
    
    But there is a fist inside the velvet glove of this voluntary program. 
    Don't want to join?  Fine.  We'll give you the animal control services
    mandated by state law, which is pretty much confined to rabies
    quarantine of animals that bite somebody and enforcement of leash laws
    on dogs.
    
    No shelter services, no spay-and-neuter programs, no adopt-an-animal
    programs.  And, most importantly, nothing at all to do with cats -- the
    most popular pet in Santa Clara County, which last year accounted for
    65 pecent of business at the two county shelters.
    
    NINE HAVE SIGNED UP
    
    To date, nine cities have decided to join; San Jose, Sunnyvale, Monte
    Sereno, Milpitas, Los Gatos, Los Altos Hills, Gilroy, Cupertino and
    Campbell.  Saratoga has rejected the county's offer, while Los Altos,
    Morgan Hill and Santa Clara have yet to make a decision.
    
    Palo Alto has its own animal control department and Mountain View pays
    the Humane Society for services.
    
    "We didn't try to figure out how much it would cost to do it ourselves,
    as it was fairly clear it would cost more," said Larry Lisenbee, San
    Jose's budget director.  "We've got no shelter, no staff, and this is a
    good part of what the county would do."
    
    _____________________
    If you're interested:
    
    The board of supervisors meets at 10am Tuesday in the supervisors'
    chambers, 70 W. Hedding St., San Jose.

    I had heard about this on the radio.  Unfortunately, I can't make the
    meeting due to having another appointment at 11:00am today.  I disagree
    with this additional property tax.  The Board of realtors is correct,
    the county humane society benefits all the people in the county, not
    just the property owners.  I think the county came up with this one 
    after the additional tax on pet food was shot down.  That pet food tax 
    was for the same purpose, raising money for the county shelters.  But, 
    I feel that they should come up with a plan that would have everyone in 
    the county contributing, since everyone in the county benefits from the
    services the humane society provides.
    
    Also, my contacts at the Santa Clara County Humane Society have told me
    that they would not be proposing anti-breeder legislation or mandatory
    spay/neuter legislation because "there isn't any money available" to do
    it with.  With this new tax, there would be money available.  The irony 
    in that would be that as a property owner, I would be footing the bill 
    for legislation that prohibits me from participating in a hobby that I 
    love.
    
    I agree that the county needs money to provide some needed services at
    the humane society.  I do not agree with this method of getting it
    though, and I fear that if the Humane Society truly does get $5 Million
    a year from this plan, that they will propose coercive legislation on
    breeders.
    
    Jo

    Just an update on this.  The property tax proposal mentioned in the
    base note did not pass.
    
    Jo