Thank you.

So good evening and welcome everyone to the Wednesday May 14th meeting of the Animal

Wellbeing Commission.

This meeting is now called to order.

And will the clerk please call the roll to establish a quorum.

Thank you chair.

Commissioners please unmute for roll call.

Commissioner Abuse?

Oh here.

Commissioner Bagley?

Here.

Thank you.

Commissioner Bill?

Here.

Commissioner Christie?

Here.

Commissioner Garcia?

Here.

Commissioner Middleton?

Here.

Commissioner Morris?

Here.

Commissioner Mouses?

Here.

Here.

Here.

And Chair Hefner?

Here.

Thank you.

We have quorum.

Excellent.

So all members of the public are welcome to address the commission of course as we are

here to provide a forum for public discussion.

I ask members of the public and chambers that if you would like to speak on an agenda item,

please turn in a speaker slip.

Know later when the item that you want to speak on begins.

You'll have two minutes to speak once you're called upon.

After the first speaker we will no longer accept speaker slips.

We'll proceed with today's agenda starting with the land acknowledgment and pledge led by

Commissioner Middleton.

Commissioner Miller, please rise for the opening acknowledgments in honor of Sacramento's indigenous

people and tribal lands.

To the people of this land, the Nisenan people, the Southern Waidu, Valley and Plains Miwok,

Patwin, Winton peoples and the people of the Wiltson Rancheria, Sacramento's only federally

recognized tribe.

May we acknowledge and honor the native people who have come before us and still walk beside

us today on these ancestral lands by choosing to gather today in the active practice of

acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous peoples' history, contributions,

and lives.

Thank you.

And now for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which

it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Our first order of business, as per usual, is approval of the consent calendar.

Do we have any speakers on that item, the consent calendar?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

There are no speakers for item one or two.

Okay.

Excellent.

Are there members who have comments to make on the consent calendar items, which would

be the minutes and the follow-up log?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Seeing and hearing none, the chair will happily entertain a motion.

I'll move.

Garcia moves in middle 10 seconds.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Oh, any abstentions?

Anybody?

The ayes have it.

Okay.

Let's move on to our discussion calendar.

Item number three is the audit of the City of Sacramento's Animal Care Services Division,

.

The audit has aal nightmare, and the, I think, if you get them on the spectrum.

If you get them on the leb together, please please come ahead and proceed with that.

Let's be sure what you have to meet with you.

That's a very specific to my data.

I'll give it a good overview on time.

If you get the opportunity member to the submit- co-민ica board meeting about and

was scheduled before president.

Is that better?

Okay, yeah.

Thank you.

The audit was scheduled for presentation

at last night's city council meeting.

The item was continued with direction

for our audit team to provide a presentation

to this commission before returning to the council.

The council thought it prudent to obtain the views

of this commission on the work done by the audit team

who will present to you shortly.

As a point of process, I'd just like to make two points.

First, this audit has been approved

by the city council's budget and audit committee

and forwarded to the city council.

We invite the commission to communicate its perspective

to the city council, which can be done in several ways.

So for example, the commission can state its concerns

on the record and the statement will be available

for submission to the city council.

A member of the commission can come and provide comments

to the city council or alternatively,

the commission can submit a letter to the city council

that'll be attached to the item

when we present it to the full council.

So the council in this discussion last night

believes that providing this perspective

would allow your commission to have your opinions

on the findings and recommendations in the audit

included in the overall discussion.

Second, we just wanted to discuss the issue

of the auditor's recommendation follow-up process.

So this is a process that we engage in biannually

and issue reports every six months

to the budget and audit committee

and subsequently to the city council

to track each department's progress

on the implementation of the different recommendations

that we issue in our reports.

So we're happy to send the chair of the committee

a copy of the report at its next issuance.

We're also available at the committee's request

to come back and present the progress

on the recommendations.

The commission may also request a representative

of the animal care services division

to provide periodic reports on the process

on the progress of these recommendations.

So we thank the commission

for your attention to the report

and I'll turn it over to the audit team

to go through the findings and recommendations.

Great.

Good evening, commissioners and public.

Thank you for having me here today.

My name is Julian Metcalf

and I'm joined by my colleague Eric Spivik

from GPP Analytics.

As mentioned, I'm here to discuss the audit

of the animal care services division.

And just for background,

the audit was very broad in scope

covering the relatively complex function

of the animal care services division.

And with that, we produced a relatively long audit report.

We did that intentionally to make sure

that the interest of the commission

and the public and city council

had the depth of information to assess this.

So I apologize for the length.

But with that, we had 10 audit findings

and 31 recommendations.

The audit also includes two sections

on functions that we assessed

but did not have audit findings on

but again included

so that we could provide additional information

for the interested parties

and an appendix as well

with additional details

about an employee engagement survey

that we ran of the division.

And that's really in the report

to provide additional information to staff

to make use of some of the information

from the audit and survey.

So I'll walk through the findings briefly.

The first finding is a big picture finding.

And as you are surely aware,

the shelter has a lot of needs

and it's quite old.

And as the assessment suggested

just a number of months ago

that it would cost about $60 million to replace.

We wanted to look at some of the root causes

behind the challenges that the shelter faces.

And when we looked at this,

we asked what is the root cause

of some of the crowding

that the shelter is facing.

And one of the number one reasons

that there's crowding

and the number one reason

that there's intake

is from stray animals

and stray dogs in particular

is a major driver of space use

and the largest reason

that animals are intake.

We asked ourselves

and the community and research,

what are some options

to reduce the intake?

And while there are

a number of options available,

given the city's budget situation,

we felt the most practical ones

are the recommendations we made.

And we do not suggest

that the recommendations

of the report are panacea.

We recognize this

is a very complicated situation,

but we wanted to put forth something

that was practical and possible

with the resources the city has

based on our knowledge.

And so that really comes down

to the opportunity

to explore partnerships

with other jurisdictions.

As you may be aware,

the county of Sacramento

has contracts

with some smaller jurisdictions

and so does the Yolo County.

That exact model

may not make sense

for the city of Sacramento,

but there are regional peers

related to the jurisdiction

that there could be opportunities

to share resources.

And then the other one

is focusing on spay and neuter services.

And we'll get into this

in a later finding

in a little bit more detail,

but that could be used

to reduce intake

since strays tend to be

the number one reason for intake,

at least the top one.

The second finding focuses

on the staffing challenges

and employee engagement.

As you may be aware,

this is a national challenge

that the field of animal care

and veterinary services has.

There is a shortage

of veterinarians.

It is a challenging work environment.

It is high risk to the employees.

And this is not unique

to Sacramento.

We did an employee engagement survey

to understand a little bit more

about what the employees face

in their time.

And that's reflected

in the appendix I mentioned.

But it's also reflected here

because what we saw

was a high vacancy level

and turnover of some positions.

And as you may know,

turnover can have

a negative effect on morale.

It can have a negative effect

on operations.

You're constantly retraining people.

In an ideal situation,

an organization has, you know,

very few vacancies

and long retention.

And that's something that

what we understand is,

excuse me,

the division has made

some progress on.

And while this is a little bit

outside of our scope,

we understand that

some of the positions

have been filled

and that this has made

some improvements.

Our recommendations

really focus on

how do you

broaden the candidate pool

by considering

some qualifications,

how do you increase engagement.

The third finding

focuses in

on some of the challenges

the division has

with unfinalized

policies and procedures.

And this is common

across lots of organizations

that we see.

There may be written policies,

there may be informal practices,

but things are not always finalized.

And that was the case here.

It's our understanding

that this was really driven

by the lack of staffing

available to complete them.

But the challenge with this is

is that without formal policies

and procedures,

then there's not a clear mechanism

to hold staff accountable to.

There's some staff report

a lack of direction

and uncertainty

about what to do.

And so in our opinion,

a strong and easy recommendation

is to finalize those,

even at the cost of the added time

when resources are slim.

The fourth finding

focuses on the animal control unit,

which really does the enforcement

of the operations

out in the community.

This particular unit

had been understaffed

for quite a while

based on its budgeted levels.

And critically,

it did not have a chief

for two years.

It's our understanding

that that position

has been filled,

and we think this is

a tremendous advantage

to the unit

and to the division overall.

Because without leadership direction,

there's risk of inconsistency.

And this is a really important

community-facing function.

We did look at the call response

and even considering

the low staffing levels,

the high-priority calls

were addressed.

And of course,

the prioritization setting

of a call

could be a subjective matter,

but for the information

that we saw,

given the low staffing,

they were effective,

and we think filling in

that staffing

and having the leadership position

for this unit

will be very beneficial

to their effectiveness.

The fifth finding

really speaks

to the data reporting.

As you may be aware,

the division actually reports

in two places.

They have a relatively robust

dashboard

on the division's website,

but the city also has

an open data portal.

And this open data portal

was pulling information

automatically

from the division's database.

And this is an area

where that had not been maintained

and watched and monitored.

And the result was

that there were fields

in there that were missing

and misclassified.

And the risk here

is that it jeopardizes

public trust

because they do such a good job

reporting on one dashboard.

The second dashboard

undermines the good work

that they were doing.

And so our recommendation here

is to clean that up,

monitor it on a regular basis,

or unify the dashboards

in some form.

The sixth finding,

and I mentioned how the,

we'll get back to spay and neuter,

focuses in on the veterinary care.

And this is another area

where there had been

low staffing levels.

And as you might know,

the veterinary care

is really broken

into two categories.

Shelter medicine,

which is the day-to-day medicine

for animals

that are in the shelter,

and then the spay

and neuter services.

With limited staffing,

it makes practical sense

that the veterinary staff

and medical staff

were focused in

on the shelter medicine.

But what that meant

is there was a lack

of resources

and availability

for doing the spay

and neuter services.

During the time of our audit,

there was a six-month wait period

for spay and neuters.

And this is a problem

not just for serving

the community,

but when the animals

are brought into the shelter,

and even if there's an adoptee,

the foster-to-adopt program,

which is a reasonable workaround

for the limited resources,

would mean that the animals

were still in the city's custody

while held by the fosterer

in the community.

And so until they could get

spayed and neutered

to be legally released

from city custody,

the city had this liability

of animals out in the community

that it was still responsible for

through the foster-to-adopt program.

By shortening

the spay and neuter timeline

and delay,

it would reduce that liability

and exposure to the community.

It would serve more animals,

and if it were the city's intention

to spay and neuter

additional animals

in the community,

it wouldn't be able to do so

without additional medical resources.

So our recommendation sought

something that seemed practical

and cost-effective.

We understand the facility

cannot be rebuilt at this time,

and so we looked at options

such as a portable unit

that would be relatively cost-effective

where there could be

separate operating space,

one for shelter, medicine,

one for spay and neuter,

and that's the basis

of our recommendation here,

along with some metric reporting

that we think could be improved.

This could be solved

in other ways.

We've heard from the division

that there are other programs

and they're working

with community partners

to improve this.

So again,

our intention with this recommendation

was how to do this

in a cost-effective manner.

That was our approach,

but again,

there could be other approaches

to it.

Finding seven focuses in

on the licensing compliance.

As you may be aware,

dogs and cats and swine

need to be licensed

within the city.

Since the compliance rates

we found are low,

this is a lost revenue,

but it also relates

to rabies control

as the licensing relates

to how rabies vaccinations

are reported in,

which is another obligation

of animal owners

within the city.

We see some low-hanging fruit,

sort of speak,

where the division

could improve this

with outreach,

with relationships,

with clinics.

We recommended

some other ideas

to explore

as possible pilots

to do increased outreach

and increased compliance.

From a revenue perspective,

this would be important

because the city's general fund

is currently significantly

supporting the division.

Increasing revenue

and compliance

in this area

would allow the division

to be somewhat more

self-supporting.

I can't imagine

it could be completely free

of the general fund,

but this would allow them

to work towards that

and have more

independent resources.

And then, of course,

rabies control

and keeping track of pets.

And the more licensing

there is,

the more that lost animals

can be returned to home quicker,

which reduces the amount

of animals held

in the shelter

and has an effect

in other areas as well.

I want to spend a moment

talking about finding aid.

And this relates

to the not-for-profit

Friends of Front Street.

They do tremendous work

supporting the shelter

and the other.

Their volunteers

and financial support

really amazed us

when we looked at this.

And one thing we noted, though,

was that the relationship

is complicated.

The non-profit

does volunteer work

and it is a major supporter

of the shelter,

but it's also a vendor

to the shelter

because they provide

contract veterinary support.

This complicated relationship,

in our opinion,

really necessitates

some type of boundaries.

We identified a number

of the risks

that we saw.

Some of them are legal,

some of them are reputational,

and some of them

just relate to trust

and how things

could be perceived.

Our recommendations

really relate

to different ways

that the city

could mitigate those risks.

We suggested

in our recommendation

an agreement.

And as you may know,

we were directed

at the Budget

and Audit Committee

to speak with Mr.

Haupt about this,

and we did.

And we had,

I think,

a pretty good conversation

and a general understanding

about the nature

of the risks.

I don't want to speak

for him,

but we do disagree

on the approach

about having an agreement

or not.

But I want to emphasize

that our recommendation

is really about

what the city can do

and what city

should do,

not directing

a nonprofit,

but in its relationship

with it,

and using

an agreement

or a memorandum

of understanding

or some type

of agreement

to define

that relationship

better.

Our ninth finding

speaks to the

Homelessness Assistance

Program,

or HOPE.

This was initiated

by council

several years ago.

It was initially

budgeted with six staff.

Due to the staffing

challenges

the division has faced,

they've had one FTE

dedicated to this program.

It makes practical sense

when there's

limited resources.

They were allocated

as the division

felt appropriate.

But as positions

are filled,

it would make sense

at least as long

as this is still

a council directive

to fill those positions

so they can meet

the goals.

And then finally,

the tenth finding here

really again speaks

to the tremendous

volunteer effort

that keeps the shelter

running.

We were amazed

to see it physically

and see the numbers

about the number

of volunteers

that are supporting

the shelter

on a day-to-day basis.

Because it is such

an important resource,

we recommend

that a little bit more

fine-tuned performance

metrics be paid to this.

There may be

some technical barriers

to that,

something we've talked

about with the division.

But really,

this is putting an emphasis

on how important

those volunteers are

and making sure

that the division

has all the resources

to better manage

that group of volunteers.

So I will pause here

and thank you.

And I want to thank

the division

for all their time.

Going through an audit

is not a fun process

and they were very open

and welcoming

and tolerant

of all of our

continued questions

and data requests.

So thank you for that

and thank you

for the City Auditor's Office

for bringing us here

to do this audit

and thank you

for hearing us today.

We're happy

to answer any questions.

Thank you very much

for your presentation.

I know that we have

members who have

many questions,

but we'll start

with comments

from the public.

I assume we have

some speakers slips

on this issue.

Thank you, Chair.

We do have some speakers

on this item.

Our first speaker

will be Jim.

Madam Clerk,

good evening,

Commissioners.

I'll be quite brief

tonight.

I have provided you

with a copy of the letter

that I wrote

to the Budget and Audit Committee.

It lays out my concerns

with the audit.

I do not believe

that those concerns

have really been addressed.

I want to make it clear.

I don't quibble

with the idea

of a memorandum

of understanding

between Friends

and Front Street,

but I need to make it clear

that I do not speak

for Friends at Front Street

any longer.

I did not run

for re-election

in February,

but I'm here

to represent

what I believe

are problems

with the audit.

Specifically,

I think the audit

is legally misleading.

I think it's

factually incomplete.

I think the errors

in the audit

are so bad

that the commission

might even consider

recommending to the council

that it approve the audit

but reject the audit

as it relates

to item number eight.

That's entirely

within your discretion.

Obviously,

I leave it to you

if or how you want

to deal with

the issues

that I see

in the audit.

Thanks very much.

Thank you, Jim.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker

will be Dia.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I wanted to bring

to your attention

that as a result

of my conversations,

it is my understanding

that the city council

was not aware

that this body

just received

last Thursday or Friday

a copy of the audit.

and that the commission

is just seeing

the auditor's presentation

tonight.

I believe that they thought

that you've been involved

with it for several weeks.

That's because

the budget committee staff,

they were briefed

before Easter

and the full budget committee

discussed the audit

three weeks ago.

What is important tonight

is to accept the task

of assisting the shelter

in prioritizing

and implementing

the recommendations

and providing a forum

for public input.

This audit truly needs

to be a catalyst

for change

and improved outcomes

at our shelter.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker

will be Jamie.

Jamie.

Hi, good evening.

I think this audit highlights

the widespread failures

of Director Zimmerman

and his lack of understanding

and appreciating the need.

The one I want to speak to

particularly is the robust,

need for a robust

spay and neuter program.

It's evident in his response

to the recommendations

for recommendation number one.

The lack of spay and neuters

that have been ongoing

under Director Zimmerman

for five years

has led not only

to an increased explosion

of the population

of animals

within Sacramento County,

but also exacerbated

the space crisis

at the shelter

and also led to

the increased euthanasia

that we see

in the reports

that will be

coming out later.

He's created this problem

over the last five years

and if you fail

at something,

you don't get a chance

to fix it as an adult.

I mean, you failed.

You're done.

We need to recommend,

this committee needs

to recommend

his replacement.

He needs to,

he just needs

to be terminated

and start all over again.

And the fact that

in one of the other

recommendations

about developing

and working

with the volunteers,

the fact that Zimmerman

has blacklisted

multiple volunteers

who have spent

their time

and energy

in trying to market

some of the animals

so that they

are not euthanized

is just another example

of his incompetence.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker

is Elise.

Hello.

I'm with Fixed Front Street

and I've been speaking

in front of you

since this commission

slash committee

was redone again.

I think that happened

in 2021.

I've been speaking

with Director Zimmerman

directly since 2020.

A quote that keeps

going around from him

is it's helpful

to get outside perspective

and recognize area

for growth.

When I saw that quote

I literally laughed

out loud

because he has been

receiving outside perspective

for five years now.

Outside perspectives

talk of standard

operating procedures

for example

in which my understanding

is he says

there's not enough

time for that.

Where was the time

when in 2020

the intake of the shelter

was a fifth

of what it normally is

where most of the employees

were working from home.

The same in 2021

when you had

severe intake restrictions.

You didn't have time then.

I mean you couldn't

have taken time out

from one of the webinars

and put it towards

some standard

operating procedures.

Standing operating procedures

are important

for training purposes

since you have

such a high turnover.

That's problematic

if nobody knows

what they're doing.

The same is to be said

about the spay and neuter.

We have come to you

with solution

after solution

after solution.

And also let's speak

to the Friends of Front Street

connection in all of this.

One of the things

that they did

was fund

the return to owners

for free.

Anybody that went

to a shelter

with an unaltered animal

got their animal back

for free

for over a year.

That is problematic

because previously

people would pay

a higher fee

to take home

an unaltered animal.

That was incentivizing

people to get

their animal altered.

That incentive

was completely

taken away.

That happened

for over a year.

How many animals

reproduced

in that time span?

The same with

the foster to adopt

situation.

There was no

accountability.

Thank you

for your comments.

Our next speaker

is Julie.

Good evening.

This audit

makes one thing

very clear.

Front Street's

leadership

has failed

both animals

and the public.

Under Director

Zimmerman,

the shelter

ignored state law,

turned away

animals in need,

and abandoned

core responsibilities

like spay-neuter

all the while

the community

and the animals

paid the price.

Let's be honest.

These weren't

just mistakes.

They were deliberate

choices.

In January,

Director Zimmerman

announced the shelter

had to halt

adoptions due to

lack of spay-neuter

resources.

But then he turned

away free spay-neuter

offer for shelter

pets,

financed by my

Fix Our Shelters

nonprofit.

Instead,

many adoptable

animals were

euthanized.

Now,

in response to

the audit,

and if you look

in the back part

of the audit,

his response,

he says he agrees

with almost every

finding.

Okay?

He agrees that

spay-neuter

is essential now.

If he truly

believed that,

why did he

reject help?

Not just now,

but before.

Okay?

And why did it

take five years

and a damning

audit for him

to finally

pretend to care?

Maybe it was a

new mayor.

Maybe it was some

new city council

members as well.

But for five years,

we've been coming

to this committee

and talking to

the members.

Thank you to new

members because

you're the ones

that can make a

difference here.

His agreement

with every audit

finding isn't

commendable.

It's incriminating.

It shows he knew

what his responsibilities

were all along.

So why didn't

he do his job?

Now he says

he'll finally act.

It's too little.

It's too late.

That's not leadership.

That is damage control.

If you want real

change, start with

accountability.

Terminate Director

Zimmerman now.

Sacramento deserves

lawful, humane,

and competent

shelter leadership,

nothing less.

Thank you,

commission members.

Thank you.

Thank you for your

comment.

Our next speaker

is Charles.

Good afternoon.

Thank you for

allowing me to speak.

As an ex-CFO

and auditor,

I'm a little

perplexed with what

I hear.

I hear that there's

some issues going

on that need to

be addressed that

haven't been addressed

for some time.

That leads to

leadership.

And even more

disturbing, I

understand that a

proposal or an

offer has been made

to someone who is

terminated for the

same actions that

the director has

done for the last

five years.

That's not

leadership.

That's just

compounding the

problem.

So as a long-time

resident, I was born

in Sacramento, and I

love animals, and I

don't think what has

happened with this

leadership is either

competent or in good

faith.

And to hire somebody

with the same bad

credentials, that's not

leadership, folks.

So it's a time to act

now.

I don't want to take

up too much time, but I

think you folks need to

really look inside your

hearts and see what's

right for the community

and what's right for

these animals.

Because it's not

happening.

So it's time for

change.

So I would say now is

the time to bring

somebody else new that

knows what the hell

they're doing, and

they're going to live

with the rules that

were set forth in the

audit.

It's real simple.

Thank you for your

time.

Have a good evening.

Thank you for your

comment.

And our last speaker on

this item will be

Susan.

Good evening.

My name is Susan

Falcon.

I'm a former boutique

owner here in Sacramento

for 18 years, and I

live in District 4.

My concern is this

audit and the findings.

Director Zimmerman's

response to the audit is

dishonest and insulting.

He claims to support a

community-based spay and

neuter programs, but that's

a lie.

Fix Our Shelters brought

SNP to Sacramento to

provide free spay and

neuter to underserved areas,

exactly what the audit

recommends.

Zimmerman didn't support it.

He rejected it.

This isn't just neglect,

it's sabotage.

Over 1,000 unaltered

animals came through the

shelter last year.

That's not population

management.

That's a failure to use

the most basic effective

tool we have to prevent

suffering.

Zimmerman can talk all he

wants about fee waivers

and transfers, but none of

that replaces spay-neuter.

He turned away a proven

community-sponsored solution

he could not have cared

less.

Those members of this

commission who have been

here for years, you have

some explaining to do.

You knew many of the

problems mentioned in this

audit were happening.

We brought it to your

attention over and over.

You ignored us and the

community, the ordinance

required you to engage with.

You knew spay and neuter was

being ignored.

You knew Petco was

underutilized.

You knew reduced intake was

illegal, and you did

nothing.

The public deserves better.

The animals deserve better.

Stop pretending this

disaster is anything but the

direct result of failed

leadership, rejected solutions,

and a complete betrayal of

animals and public trust.

Thank you, new commission

members, for taking charge in

helping the animals.

Thank you for your comments.

Chair, there are no other

speakers.

Okay.

I know that there are members

who have an interest in asking

some questions.

I would just advise folks who

were not among those of us who

stuck around at the city council

for four hours last night that

we did get a specific request

from the council, which is a

pretty rare thing.

And the first was to provide

some feedback regarding finding

number eight as it concerns

Friends of Front Street.

And then second, to look at and

provide some recommendations with

regard to how the commission

might be involved in follow-up work

with the, as it relates to the

audit.

So if folks would pay attention to

those things as well as whatever

else is on their minds, that would

be great.

The first one I've got on my list is

Commissioner Treat.

Yes.

I don't know where to begin, but I'll

start with some acknowledgement that

I probably am the only person on

this commission that sat on Friends

of Front Street for four years and

also sit on this commission now.

The majority of the people on this

commission are new within the last

nine months.

So some of these issues were new to

us.

I will tell you that I think part of

the audit makes sense.

I mean, I love the hope stuff, the

dashboard stuff, the licensing

compliance, although we're going to

talk about how many you can have.

All the things with spay and neuter are

key.

I was unhappy that I only saw this a

week ago.

It was 104 pages.

I'm dyslexic, so it's a little slow in

reading.

But I will add that the Section 8 on

Friends does bother me of knowing what

good deeds they do and how many other

nonprofits the city works with that

these things aren't insisted on, that I

know of.

So in my opinion, if the audit is

decided to go forward, I would say that

you need to express some dissatisfaction as

the commission to have number eight in

the audit.

That's my first point.

Can we address that point before we get

lost on the other points?

Go for it.

And I'm glad you guys are bringing this

up because I honestly think you say

tomato, I say tomato, that there's not

huge differences between what Mr.

Hope is saying and what we're saying.

So if we kind of take the two documents

together, the two documents being our

audit and his response, if you give me

some time, we could walk through those

differences and they're not major.

So and I do appreciate you took the time

to put your thoughts in writing.

So we have a record.

We can all refer to it and be literally

and figuratively on the same page.

So as Mr.

Hope says, sorry to mispronouncing that,

he doesn't disagree with this concept of a

memo of understanding that things should be

in writing between two organizations.

Change happens.

People come and people go.

Writing is a good way to document that.

And what he says in paragraph two,

in the middle, I have told board members that

they should not use their position as board

members to try dictating shelter policy.

And we agree 100% with you.

And basically that is what we kind of said.

I mean, our wording was a little bit different,

but our first point was in a memo of understanding,

you explicitly state that.

You say what people's roles are,

what their responsibilities are,

what kind of the barriers are,

you know, where you're crossing lines.

And that should just be in the document.

We didn't say their freedom of speech should be taken away.

We said exactly what you said,

only we didn't use the word try to dictate,

because that's a very strong word.

We were just concerned about people trying to persuade.

Now, people in positions of authority and power

sometimes don't realize how strong their words are.

And again, that's why when you put things in writing,

it just helps to make sure there's that understanding of it.

That was the intent.

And we have confidence and belief

that the city legal department

and drafting a memo of understanding

would write it accordingly.

We don't think they would try and,

in a draconian manner,

try and say that they can't express any opinions

and they have no freedom of speech.

So again, I don't know,

it'd be great if we could just sit down as people

and have a conversation instead of we talk

and then someone else talks.

The back and forth will help us get to the bottom of it.

Again, I really believe from my heart

are very nuanced differences here

between what we wrote and what he wrote.

If you would like me, we could read,

I don't know if everybody has a document,

but we can go through what we said on that point

if it would help matters.

Well, I have another point to that,

is that I read the document and it refers to lobbying.

I am a registered lobbyist in the state of California.

I lobby for clients.

What people at Front Street do

is they don't lobby people who work at Front Street.

In fact, we had very little to do

with working with people at Front Street

except for raising, no, I'm not done,

except for raising funds

to try and help as many animals as possible

in the county, county and city,

because you have to realize

that the homeless are not in city lines all the time

and that was a part of our program.

Right.

So you can say it's a word issue all you want.

I'm telling you that Section 8, in my opinion,

is an affront to private fundraising

for groups that are nonprofits,

and if you're not going to have that

with every single nonprofit

that does something for the city,

and do you?

I'm sorry, you asking a question now?

Actually, no, our scope was limited to the division,

so we did not assess agreements citywide,

and I would say our finding does not suggest

there is lobbying occurring.

We just said the nature of the relationship risks

that that could happen since it is undefined

in the roles people are playing.

We do not think that that is occurring.

We did not see evidence of that.

We were just saying that ambiguous relationships

could use more definition.

Yeah, and to add to that,

when we use the word risk,

just to make sure everybody's understanding us correctly,

it is defined of a possibility in the future

of an event occurring that has an adverse effect.

So as you said, the Front Street friends do not lobby,

and yeah, we're not saying they do.

We're just saying when you write up this memo,

if the city decides to write a memo,

they should just put in there a sentence that says,

you know, these folks should just be reminded

that they're not registered lobbyists

and that they shouldn't lobby.

That's all we were trying to say here.

We really weren't trying to be confrontational.

We weren't trying to be disparaging.

We were just saying, let's formalize things.

You're a big city, and that was all.

And in this memo you were going to write,

my question would be,

were you going to include this commission?

I'm sorry, we weren't going to write a memo.

We were suggesting that the city...

Do an MOU.

And the friends write an MOU.

Yeah, and they negotiate it together.

Yeah, that's all.

Okay, that gets down to what my suggestion

for the commission is,

is that what I would like to see,

depending on support of this commission,

is that I would like to see us have an ad hoc committee

that goes through these 104 pages

and walks through our suggestions to the city council

of what does make sense

and the things that we do support as a commission

and things that are out of what we think should be considered.

And Section 8 is one of those that I don't think

directing a nonprofit makes any sense to me whatsoever

if you want that nonprofit to continue raising funds

and doing good things for the shelter.

So that's going to be my suggestion.

The commission can do whatever they want with it.

We were directed by the city to look into both Section 8

and to look into the other parts.

And I think there are some very good points to this.

I'd also like to have a deck afterwards

versus me just taking pictures of every page.

Can that deck that you put up...

Excuse me?

Is it already online?

Which deck are you referring to, ma'am?

As you went through each one of your findings.

The slideshow.

The slideshow?

Yeah, that I believe is in the agenda packet.

Okay, we don't have an agenda packet.

You mean online?

It is online, I believe.

Commissioner, if I may,

I do want to clarify again

that the recommendation in our audit

is for the city to form some type of agreement.

We were trying not to be too prescriptive

because we recognize that as a negotiation.

And the intent of it is to protect the city

from the risks that we outlined,

not to direct the nonprofit.

It is truly for the city's interest

and really to protect staff and city

from liability and compliance with its own policies.

And my question was,

how many other nonprofits do you ask to do an MOU with?

I think it's a relatively common practice

to have an MOU with,

between two entities that have

ambiguous, complicated roles

where one is a vendor and one is a volunteer.

And this is not to say

that the work of the nonprofit isn't tremendous.

It's just, it is complicated

and complication can lead to risk.

That's all I have.

Thank you, Member Treat.

Commissioner Christie.

Thank you.

I made it through most of the audit.

I, like Commissioner Treat,

some more time would be really helpful.

But I did appreciate that you had looked

at other municipalities in reference to their data

and different data points and all of that.

I was curious though,

and maybe I'm the only one that didn't know this,

but I didn't have any background into your firm,

your GPP analytics,

and your just background and experience

with running audits in similar divisions.

Is that, in animal care services,

is that something that you've done frequently?

Is this the first one?

No, it's not.

The firm is relatively new.

We're a small team.

We come from different backgrounds.

Eric here used to be the county auditor

for Jackson County in Oregon,

and he did perform animal care services audits

in particular,

but we are generalists at the end of the day.

We look at government functions,

and we look at risk,

and we move between various types of functions.

It's a very common,

I don't want to get into audit jargon,

but it's very common to look at government functions

and move between them in this role.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Commissioner Morris.

Thank you.

Yes, thanks.

Thank you for being here tonight

and talking with us.

I think a few of us were a little surprised

at the turn of events last evening at City Council,

so happy to have a chance to talk with you,

and as Council Member Gerardo said,

give us a bite at the apple

so that we can represent the commission.

I'm interested in the idea

that you're generalists in shelter auditing.

When we did a needs assessment in 2024,

in the RFP for needs assessment to be conducted,

we had to have people who had experience

in shelter assessments,

so it's curious in terms of that,

that seems to not have been a request here

or a requirement,

but our needs assessment was conducted

by experts in the field of shelter medicine

and shelter facilities,

so that's just a curiosity.

I was curious,

and I read Mr. Hope's letter,

and I see that he was interviewed several times,

it appears,

or at least one time,

and I don't see any appendix to this audit

of who you had interviews with,

and I would like to request

if we may have a list

of who you had interviews with.

I'm not aware that any member of this commission

was invited for an interview,

and maybe I'm just not aware of that,

but I do know that the officers

weren't invited for an interview,

which is surprising to me.

I'm also aware that,

to the best that I could learn,

no one in the leadership program

at the UC Davis Veterinary Shelter Medicine Department

was invited to be interviewed

to give comment on the operations of our shelter,

which is also surprising

that you didn't reach to our neighbors

across the causeway for expertise

on an audit of the shelter.

You quote some of their research,

which is great,

but they're right there,

and they're very available

to have comment on a shelter audit.

I do find that you have comments

about some of their programs

regarding capacity for care

and managed intake,

which you seem to support managed intake

in one of your findings,

so it is great that you've picked up

some of the information

that the shelter medicine program

has done research on and developed,

but it really would have been helpful

to have that expertise,

so if you do other shelter audits,

you might want to engage with them.

So is it possible to get a list

of who all participated in this audit?

I mean, that's a good question.

I mean, so those are our work papers,

and generally,

we do not release lists of interviewees

simply for confidentiality.

It's something we'll have to speak

with the city auditor's office about

and the city's policies with that.

The audit was conducted

using what's known as the Yellow Book audit standards

by the Government Accountability Office

that generally accepted

government auditing standards, GAGIS,

and with that,

we are specialists in local government

and cities, counties,

special districts in particular,

and while we are not animal care specialists,

the risks and the nature

of what we were asked to look at

were in compliance with the Yellow Book standards

and really based on our experience

with government functions

across multiple cities,

across multiple states,

and how they operate.

This one happens to be specialized.

If we had been doing an audit of public works,

and because we might not be,

you know, familiar with,

you know, asphalt and pipes

and construction of public works,

it wouldn't preclude us

from looking at organizational functions

and looking at the performance

of the organization.

And we did do an extensive amount of research,

and we did have a very long interview list

of people within the city,

of stakeholders,

and I apologize that the commission

wasn't included in that.

That's kind of a big deal.

Based on our direction and our scope,

we were limited in trying to spread ourselves

across a very broad scope.

It is not common for us in this field

to interview elected officials

or appointed officials like yourself.

That's not a normal practice.

It's not that it's never done.

It's just not very common.

So to be honest,

that is not something that I thought to do

because it is not a normal practice.

I understand how you have valuable input,

but that, again,

is not a normal practice

in this auditing field.

And I would say I had,

we had no role in the scheduling,

so I apologize

that you had such a short window.

I believe it was posted

with the Budget and Audit Committee,

but of course,

not everyone follows every other committee,

and you all have busy lives,

so I'm sorry you had such short notice

to read the report.

And again, we wrote a long report

because we felt that the depth of information

was important to include.

We are very capable

of writing a very short report,

but then everyone asks questions

about the details,

and when they have such a passionate community

that care,

we felt it was important

to have the details in there

to prevent the subsequent questions that come.

So again, I apologize about the length.

You know, I don't ask for an apology on the length.

I'm happy to read the materials

and understand the discussion

behind the length of it.

And if you look at our needs assessment,

it's pretty lengthy.

I don't know what to do with attachments,

et cetera, so I had a couple of, like,

specific questions.

One was related to your finding

about the concept of licensing,

and you talked about that there's a,

that we have 14% of dogs are licensed

compared to an average of 23%

for 70 other jurisdictions.

Can you provide us with a list

of those 70 jurisdictions

so we could find out from them

how they're doing their licensing

in order to help us boost our licensing?

Yeah, I believe so.

That came from the city's vendor

that does, manages the licenses,

DocuPet.

They had released this survey.

Off the top of my head,

I believe it was from 2018.

When I spoke with DocuPet,

they were working on a newer survey

to update that

because a lot has changed since 2018,

and so there may even be

newer information available soon.

They said that they would send it to us,

but the audit was finalized

before their survey was complete.

So I believe it's from,

it's a public document that we can share.

It's nothing confidential,

the 2018 one,

and then look forward to whatever

they're able to produce for the future

because it is not easy information to get.

And when we talked with other jurisdictions,

this is not a common thing

that they post and share.

So their survey was very valuable

in getting comparables.

And if I could add one little caveat,

just to make sure there's full understanding.

We don't know how many animals are in the city.

It's an estimate number

that the American veterinary comes up with

based upon a population

and average ownership rates.

And everybody uses that as the standard.

But again, like there's no way to test it

unless you could physically count

every animal.

So the rates could be higher or lower.

It's just a formula.

And it's footnoted in here.

I don't have the numbers memorized,

but it's something like

a certain percentage of households

have like 1.6 dogs per household.

So, you know, it's a ballpark.

I just want to make sure

sometimes when people read a number,

it becomes accepted as a fact

versus an estimate.

So I just wanted to clarify that for you.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

I think that,

and I'm going to look at the assistant city auditor

and ask again if you would outline

your thoughts about how we're supposed

to provide feedback

because I'm a little hesitant

to provide feedback

as sort of general public comments.

So to go, for example,

to a city council meeting

and do a two-minute comment,

partially because we were asked

directly by city council

to provide some input.

So we're wondering a little bit more

about gathering input today

and forwarding that more than just,

for example, a letter from the commission.

Well, I think for the time

when this goes to city council

for presentation,

I think any and all of you

could show up and make comment

in that regard.

I think the direction

from the city attorney's office to us

was to collect a series of notes

as you guys make this

and then we would present that

to the city council

as part of the discussion

when the audit team

makes that presentation

to the city council.

Kind of part of that.

I know we're all,

I'm going to use this analogy a lot.

We're flying the plane

while we're building it.

Sure.

We are trying to figure out

how to work with this

and get the process going.

So I think we've been in touch

with city attorney's office

and sort of figuring out

how to go forward here.

Over to Member Treat

and our overall direction.

I hear Member Treat suggesting

that we have a subcommittee

that looks through the whole audit

and comes up with some recommendations

to city council.

Timeline, timing of that timeline,

that's a good question.

One of the things

that I wonder about

is picking a few of the findings

that this commission

or commission members

have passion around,

if you will,

and having maybe some ad hoc committees

that potentially do a little bit

of more deeper engagement on,

and I will just put my hand up

and say the whole world

of employee engagement

is an interest in an area

around which I have some thoughts.

So I don't know

if we as individual commissioners

want to weigh in

on potential areas of the audit

that we have interest

and expertise.

I'm also on the page

of being clear

that we need to give

a recommendation regarding item 8,

vis-a-vis friends,

and I think I've been hearing

a lot about an MOU,

and I know we have an attorney

on our commission here,

so there's probably

some weighing in on that,

but it seems to me

that one idea would be

to let the city attorney work

to give support

that we believe an MOU

is important

and have the city attorney

work out an MOU

between the parties.

That's an idea

that I wonder about.

Certainly others can weigh in

on whether that makes sense

or not.

I was surprised

at some of the findings

related to the Friends

of Front Street

and also Mr. Hope's letter,

and so there's a part of me

that's like,

huh, I wonder if the city

and the Friends of Front Street

need to kind of align,

as I think we were hearing

a minute ago,

through an MOU.

that makes a lot of sense

to me to have an MOU.

Regarding the other audits,

I don't know about

having a group of us

go through the whole,

regarding the other findings,

I don't know about us

having everyone sit

or try to figure out

what findings,

but I wonder about

some of us kind of identifying

a few of the findings

that we might want

to put some time

and energy into.

It's a suggestion.

I know we're still talking here

about how to give feedback

to the City Council.

I think those are

a couple of my questions.

I think that's it for me

for the moment.

I might request

to ask another question

if something comes up.

Okay.

Commissioner Bagley.

Thank you.

Good evening, gentlemen.

First, I want to thank you

for your in-depth work on this.

I appreciate all the research

you did,

the people you talked to,

the documents you looked at,

and the questions you asked.

I have some concerns

that you may not have known

some other things,

but I thought you did

great work here,

and I will tell you,

in all fairness,

I'm on this commission now,

but I used to sit out there

and get cut off

after two minutes.

So there are many things here

that aren't new to me,

and I want to talk to you

about a few things.

I'm reading it.

I read it over and over,

and the parts that were

important to me

I read so many times.

I feel that this reflects

colossal failures

across the board by management.

That's what I think.

I don't need that.

Okay.

I'd like to know

whether you were ever told

that until very,

very recently,

the city of Sacramento

did not offer

the service

of picking up

healthy,

stray dogs

that roam

and stray

in the neighborhoods

of Sacramento.

Were you aware of that?

Because there was

no mention of that,

and you did talk

no less than five times

about the importance

and significance

that community spay

and neuter

would offer this city.

And so I'm wondering

if you were ever told

they don't pick up

healthy strays.

You know,

we were not told

that specifically,

but in our observations

of the ride-alongs,

I would say that

when we saw officers

out in the field,

there was oftentimes

reported animals,

and they weren't there

when they went.

So this doesn't answer

your question exactly,

but we observed

anecdotally

that when a call

comes in for an animal

and they're not always there

when the officer goes out.

Absolutely.

So there may be instances,

and I'm not,

that's my first conclusion

as well,

we observed some occasions

when that would make sense,

where there may have been

a stray which was reported

but was not picked up

because they couldn't find it.

That's not what I'm asking.

What I want to know

is if you were aware

that there was a policy,

an operational policy,

whereby people

people that called in,

strays,

were asked,

are they healthy,

are they sick or injured,

the city doesn't pick them up

if they're healthy,

up until just very recently

after your audit came out.

Were you ever told that?

You know,

we heard a lot of information

when we were out there.

I can't say with 100% accuracy

whether we were specifically

told or not.

And the interesting issue

for us for that,

and we kind of put it forth,

I think,

in the very beginning

of the report,

is the research showed

there were two theories

on that.

And it's not our role,

really,

to say which theory

is the right one.

So what we tried to do

in the very beginning

was say,

here's the public issues,

public policy issues,

here's a little bit

of background on it.

And the city policy makers,

that's not an audit thing,

that's a policy thing.

Right.

Do they want to direct

the policy to pick up

every stray they could find

and focus their efforts on that?

Or do they want to go

with the other theory?

They're both out there,

you know,

people are saying,

some people say yes,

some people say no.

Okay.

So that's about as close

as we can get

to that issue for you.

Well,

if most shelters

or animal control crews

do pick up healthy strays,

that would certainly

be a factor,

leaving animals

that are healthy

on the street,

that would certainly

be a factor

that would show

an increased need

for community spay

and neuter,

right?

That's a fair statement.

I mean,

I'm just cautious

to weigh in

because this is

a complex issue

and there's a lot

of different opinions

and we were trying

not to take

a specific policy

perspective on this.

I appreciate it.

Because I think

I hear what you're saying.

Yeah.

But we've been cautious

not to make

a judgment call on that

because there are

different approaches

in the community.

Were you aware

or were you ever told

that in our region

of the stray dogs

that are in our neighborhoods

that 90% of them

are unaltered?

That we would definitely

not know a percentage

of how many dogs

are altered or unaltered.

That I feel comfortable

saying, yeah,

we wouldn't have

that number.

Yeah, right.

You didn't ask,

can you pull up those stats

so we can see

if that's verified?

Yeah, correct.

But those two factors,

if dogs were left

in neighborhoods

and 90% of them

are unaltered,

that would certainly be

and show you

an increased need

for getting animals

in the community

spayed and neutered,

whether it's low cost

or free, right?

I would say so

because our first finding

really focuses in

on what we saw

as reasonable things

that could be done

and recognizing

if money and time

were unlimited,

there's a lot more

that could be done,

but we saw community

spay and neuter

as a reasonable choice

that could,

and I say could carefully

because, again,

this is debated policy,

it could help

reduce the intake.

I'm careful

not to take sides,

but we did see that

as a very practical solution.

Yeah, I don't want you

to take sides.

I think what your words

were long-term strategies

like community spay and neuter

to address animal population

growth in the city.

It's a form of management.

Population management

is what you said,

and the root causes

for animal numbers

coming into the shelter,

which means if they're

out in the community,

they're left out

in the community,

they're unaltered,

that is something

we should be addressing

with community spay and neuter.

We don't just reserve

spay and neuter

for shelter animals

or the backlog

of foster to adopt.

We want to be able

to hit what's coming in.

Why are we having

the problem

with this crisis

of overpopulation?

You want to go out,

you want to educate

the community,

tell them the advantages

of spay and neuter,

and offer it to them

if the costs

are exorbitant

right now in our community,

we have to come up

with some programs

to either reduce

those costs

or offer them free

because animals

are breeding.

Isn't that what you're,

you said it five times.

I mean,

you got to it.

We do say that,

and again,

we were looking

for practical solutions

that seemed like

a tangible choice.

It's a long-term one

to invest in,

and the city,

the challenges

with the city's budget,

it may not be

a short-term one

that is able

to pursue,

but we believe

that that would help

reduce the intake

over the long-term,

but it wouldn't be

a near-term solution.

Of course not.

It's long-term,

and it's not just

a long-term solution

for the shelter.

It's a moral solution.

It's a societal solution.

This is out of control.

Okay,

I want to take you

into something

very specific.

One of your diagrams,

which I found enlightening,

shocking,

quite honestly,

and it's figure four-four

for those of you

who have the audit

in front of you,

page 38,

and it concerns

the activity rate

of the animal control crew

in the time

that the last chief quit

and at least part

of the months

before the new chief

was hired,

and so to be specific

on the dates,

you have the last chief quit

around June of 2023,

and in January

of this year, 2025,

the new chief was hired,

so we've got six months

that's not listed

in your graph,

but what you have is,

and I'm summarizing this,

and you tell me

if I'm reading this right,

when the last chief left,

the activity rates,

not the calls,

the activity rates,

meaning what the officers

actually do

if and when

they respond to a call,

the activities

were over 1,100, right?

And within one year,

over the months,

over a 12-month period

consecutively,

it just becomes reduced

and reduced and reduced

until finally,

one year later,

let's say June of 2024,

we are down 60%

on activity

by those officers.

It drops from 1,100

to over 700,

400 rates of activity, right?

Right.

Now,

and what I wanted to know is,

were you aware

that those would have been

pretty critical calls

if, in fact,

I'm right

that they weren't

picking up healthy strays,

then the calls

that came in

that were not acted on

with activity

by the officers

were calls other than that,

meaning whether

it be an injured animal.

By the time they arrive,

if they arrive,

if they get out

of their truck,

there's no activity taken

and they might have been

critical calls.

Yes,

and I think that's why

we really emphasize

the need for the chief position.

Yes.

And I do not want

to disparage the staff

that were in that position

to work with fewer resources

and without direction

because that is the challenge

with having that leadership vacuum

and leaving everyone

to do what they think

is best at their own discretion

can work,

but having someone

in a leadership position

creates consistency.

Oh, yeah.

And I think that's what

we're seeing here

in the numbers.

And I...

There's also staffing levels too,

though.

The what?

And staffing levels.

Well, I realize that.

But what I want to know

is you said,

well, now we have a chief

and that can help

certainly for consistency,

but it's not as if

we didn't have a manager

because one of the things

you cite in that section,

in that section,

in that finding,

is that there was lack

of oversight by the manager.

He knew there wasn't a chief.

There's no chief for two years

and there's a lack of oversight

on those officers

to the extent that

calls go unanswered

and if and when they show up,

there's no activity.

Right?

No oversight.

Well,

I want to be careful

because our audit scope

was not to assess personnel

in particular.

I understand.

It's not a performance metric.

I just want to know.

You brought that up yourself.

You said there's a lack of oversight

by the manager

even when the chief is not there.

There's no chief there.

And one of the things

you talked about

and you segued into,

we have a lack of standards

of procedure,

a lack of standards

of guidelines,

lack of protocols,

lack of everything

in this shelter,

including that animal control crew.

All right?

And the answer

in your narrative

given by the manager,

not in the responses

at the end of the audit.

And this is on page 32.

If you want to go to 32.

And I believe

it's the very last paragraph.

You said,

to date,

the division's management reports

that it has been unable

to prioritize

developing policies

and procedures

due to limited time

and resources.

That was the answer?

Correct.

Did you find that

as unacceptable as I do?

We don't want to,

we don't want to make

a judgment call about that,

but we believe that

policies and procedures

and consistency

and leadership

is important.

Okay.

Now I wanted to take you

into one other diagram,

one last diagram here.

I was just going to say

that, you know,

evidence,

we can only state

what there's evidence.

You made mention that

this is a shelter

that had implemented

community sheltering

and reduced intake.

and you didn't discuss

too much

about those models

and I am curious

as to whether or not

you were ever told

the full extent

of the aspects

of that model

as applied

in this shelter.

Did you get into depth

on what aspects

of community sheltering

were told

to the public

when they implemented

that policy?

I'm sorry,

I'm getting a little lost

as to what you're trying to...

When you understood

that this was

a shelter

that implemented

community sheltering

and reduced intake,

were you aware

that part of that policy

was what is sometimes

called turn-away sheltering?

In other words,

a person could present

a stray dog unaltered

and they would be told,

look,

try to keep it.

If you can't keep it,

try to find its owner.

If you can't find its owner,

put it back

where you found it.

Yes.

Did you understand that?

We did understand that

and we think

given the crowding

that we understand

the challenge

that the city faces

with its resources.

When we spoke

with other jurisdictions,

that method

is used there as well

and we believe

there's probably

some liability around it.

and we noted,

I believe,

in the San Diego case,

which I don't know

if it's been resolved yet,

but it was in the process

of being resolved

and citing that

as a potential risk.

Well,

if a shelter's implementing

a policy

whereby the public

is told,

if you can't keep it,

find the owner

or find the owner,

put it back

where it's found

and if,

in fact,

that animal's unaltered,

which,

if I'm right,

90% of those strays

are unaltered,

it's another factor

that demands

community spay and neuter,

right?

I think that's a fair point

for the need

for spay and neuter services.

So we've got animals

left in the street

if they're not picking them up.

We've got animals

returned to the street

if they implement

community sheltering,

right?

All unaltered

or 90% unaltered.

Now I want to ask you

about foster to adopt.

You're aware

that there's a program

of plain fostering,

general fostering,

as well as foster to adopt,

that it went on for years,

at least the last,

very,

very strongly

the last five years

while Mr. Zimmerman's

been our manager

and were you aware

that during those fosters,

they lacked

a robust follow-up program,

a robust spay

and neuter support

for those animals then

that were released

into the community

in a condition

by which they could breed

and overpopulate.

We looked into the release

and we didn't see

strong evidence

that we could include

in the audit related to that.

We did see some cases

where there were

escaped animals

and some that were marked

as stolen,

which we took to mean

our understanding

was that the owners

may have moved out

of the area

and then,

of course,

they've taken city property

and those animals

have been stolen.

And we would agree

based on our understanding

of the backlog

that the follow-up

was limited

because it was

so delayed.

And we had animals

unaltered

that were released