ANIMAL CONTROL'S FUTURE UNCERTAIN; CITIES WON'T FEEL FINANCIAL LOSS OF SIMI THIS YEAR.

Byline: Douglas Clark Daily News Staff Writer

Despite dire predictions following Simi Valley's decision to jump ship, there will be no significant rate increases this year for cities that contract for animal regulation services from Ventura County.

Next year may be a different story.

Having survived one more budget season with her $2.8 million agency intact, county Animal Regulation Service Director Kathy Jenks said she has already begun thinking about how she can provide services at competitive prices a year from now.

One solution may be handing over her agency's work to another county or nonprofit animal service organization, a pragmatic move applauded by some county officials and angering others.

Jenks' request to solicit proposals to provide animal regulation services in Ventura County was approved by the Board of Supervisors last month. She will go out to bid within the next six months, she said.

``It's going to be a long, interesting year,'' she said.

Simi Valley's recent decision to drop Ventura County for the Los Angeles County Animal Care and Control Department - a move Thousand Oaks made in 1992 - caused speculation that Moorpark, Camarillo and other cities would be hit with large cost increases this fiscal year to make up for the $252,000 loss. Last month the Simi Valley City Council agreed to a $215,000 contract with Los Angeles County.

To avoid those increases, Moorpark and Camarillo considered changing animal service providers - a move that would have caused an even bigger drop in revenue for Ventura County Animal Regulation Service.

For now, both cities have decided to stay with Ventura County.

But Charlotte Craven, vice mayor of Camarillo where the VCAR facility is located, said next year is up for grabs.

``For this year we'll stay with the county. I don't know what is going to happen next year because I don't know how the City Council sits with this long-range,'' she said.

Craven is outspoken in her support of Jenks and her agency. She said she believes Simi Valley's move is shortsighted because it doesn't take into account all that Ventura County offers.

In particular, she said neighboring counties don't offer an emergency plan for the evacuation of animals in the event of fire, flood or earthquake.

In fact, she said Santa Barbara and Los Angeles counties have benefited from Ventura County's emergency plan and network of volunteers.

``You have to look at all the services provided. I think all they've (Simi Valley) looked at is patrol for strays, shelter and licensing.''

Joe Hreha, Simi Valley deputy director of community services, said Craven's speculation is untrue.

``They had to deal with the earthquake in Northridge somehow,'' he said referring to Los Angeles County's handling of the 1994 tremor. ``They have an emergency plan in place and have mutual agreements with other organizations.''

Bob Ballenger, executive assistant for Los Angeles County animal services, could not be reached for comment.

County Supervisor Frank Schillo also disagrees with Craven.

Schillo was a member of the City Council when Thousand Oaks dropped Ventura County for Los Angeles County animal services. He said the city saved ``quite a bit of money.''

``In today's climate, government has to provide services people want. It's a matter of providing better services at a lower cost. People don't care where those services come from,'' he said.

But Schillo does support cooperation between counties. He said he is discussing the possibility of a joint venture between Santa Barbara County and portions of west Ventura County.

``We should be working jointly with other counties to lower overhead,'' he said.

Jenks agrees cost savings are important. But she also said the issue is not merely a matter of who provides services, more to the point is maintaining local control of a service.

Also, though wracked by cuts in recent years, Jenks said her 47-member staff has provided a lot in recent years.

Statistics are unavailable for the fiscal year that ended June 30, but the year before her agency dealt with 8,332 dogs, 6,440 cats and 2,309 other animals - including livestock and marine life.

Among the dogs, 2,079 were reclaimed by owners, and about 4,100 were adopted, leaving about half to be destroyed. The cats didn't fare as well: 4,699 were destroyed, while only 144 were reclaimed and 1,500 were adopted.

Even so, in a June 10 memo to county supervisors, Jenks said that if the savings Simi Valley will enjoy could be replicated throughout the county, ``we would be remiss in our fiduciary responsibilities were we not to at least investigate the alternatives.''