Good evening.

Welcome to Wednesday.

Rule to establish a quorum.

Yes, thank you, Chair.

Commissioners, if you can please unmute your microphones.

Commissioner Tree?

Here.

Commissioner Wells?

Here.

Commissioner Verga.

Commissioner Contreras?

Here.

Commissioner Hayes?

Here.

Commissioner Bergen?

Here.

Commissioner Bell?

Here.

Commissioner Benedict?

Here.

Vice Chair Bagley?

Here.

Commissioner Christie is absent.

Commissioner Asquith?

Here.

Commissioner Pew?

Here.

Commissioner Garcia.

Here.

Commissioner Morris?

Here.

And Chair McDoll.

Here.

Thank you.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

I would like to remind members of the public and chamber that if you'd like to speak on an agenda item, please turn in a speaker slip before the item begins.

After the item is called, we will no longer accept speaker slips.

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

And we will now proceed with today's agenda.

Uh first off is land acknowledgement and pledge.

Sure.

Everyone, please stand if you're able.

To the original people of this land.

The Ninason people, the Southern Maidu, Valley and Plains Miwok, Pat Wynwinton Peoples, and the people of the Wilton Rancheria, Sacramento's own only federally recognized tribe.

May we acknowledge and honor the native people who came before us and still walk beside us today on these ancestral lands by choosing to gather together today in the active practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous people's history, contributions, and lives.

Thank you.

To the flag of the United States of America, to the public for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Next is the approval of the consent calendar.

Clerk, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on the consent calendar?

Thank you, Chair.

We do not have any speakers for the consent.

Are there any commissioners who wish to speak on the consent calendar?

It's like Commissioner Verga or Contreras.

And oh sorry, yeah.

Actually, let me do this and then we'll introduce our new members.

Okay, Commissioner Contreras?

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

The new members?

Jamie.

Jamie.

Okay.

All right.

Is there anyone who wants to speak regarding the consent calendar?

All right.

Um is there a motion and a second for the consent accepting the consent calendar?

So moved.

In a second.

I'll second.

All right.

All in favor, say aye, and you can speak globally.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

And that motion is just confirming that we moved by Vice Chair Bagley and second by Commissioner Bell.

Correct.

Perfect.

The motion passes.

Very good.

Thank you.

All right, we do have a couple of new members on our commission that are joining us today.

And so I wanted to give you guys an opportunity to introduce yourself to your fellow commissioners and the public.

Hi, I'm Amy Wells.

I've lived in Sacramento for about 25 years now.

Nice to join you.

I look forward to jumping in and helping where I can.

Very well.

Commissioner Contreras.

Good evening, everybody.

My name is Brenda Contreras, a little bit about myself.

I was born and raised in South Los Angeles.

I have been living in the Brentwood neighborhood for in the city of Sacramento for about five years.

And lastly, I want to thank Councilmember Katie Maple for the opportunity to serve on this commission, and I'm ready to get to work.

Thank you guys.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Alright, moving on to our discussion calendar.

Our first item on the agenda is the discussion of shelter redemption procedures and ways to incentivize spay and neuter for owners reclaiming pets.

Interim manager Hinderman.

Yeah, I thought I'd just uh start us off with kind of a review of the current uh redemption protocol.

Um this is something we've been doing a lot of work on since oh towards the end of 2025.

As you know, uh the shelter um has struggled with capacity for spay and neuter uh for our own pets, uh which resulted in 800 animals uh being in foster to adopt at one time.

We had a huge huge effort from our medical team and and uh working with um working with partners to to get those numbers down.

Um but really towards the end of last year, the leadership team and the um the veterinarians um you know had a discussion about really trying to ramp up spay neuter uh for animals being redeemed, not just for second impounds, but for first as well.

And so this procedure has um kind of evolved since that time, um and we've found that there's many different situations and lots of different holes that kind of needed to be to be um filled and niche cases that needed to be addressed.

But um, think it's really close to being complete.

Um, particularly um uh many of you probably saw my email discussing um the need for a hearing process.

That's been uh that's been um a long process getting the script from um uh you know everything from a script from the city attorney's office to finding another city department that would be willing to do these for us.

Um luckily the code department has has um stepped up and um has offered to do these, so I've been working very closely with them over the course of the last month uh to get the hearings in place for those second impounds during the stray hold period.

So a little bit of background there, but I'll kind of go through it.

Uh I won't go through every detail, but but the most important details uh for everyone to be aware of.

Uh first thing to be aware of is that, especially when we're talking about mandatory spay neuter, um, we're only able to enforce that for stray or at-large impounds.

So things like um arrests or hospitalizations, or um uh like a like a sweep, like a homeless encampment sweep where you know we're out there and we um take the animal because the person isn't able to take the animal.

Um, those things um would not count as an at-large um uh an at-large impound.

Um the kind of spirit of the of the um the code is the idea that if an animal is getting out, getting loose, has a history of doing that that spay and neuter could uh uh help to reduce those roaming behaviors because the dog uh isn't trying to uh there's less likely to want to go seek seek a mate.

Uh and of course, when it is um out at large, there is you know a potential for it to find another dog who's not altered and and um possibly reproduce.

So, we're only talking about um uh at-large impounds here, although I'm happy also to talk about um you know encouraging incentivizing spay neuters for other types of impounds as well.

Um another important note is uh you might be aware that we there's a um there's a 72-hour hold uh for most pets that come to us, but before we make them available for adoption or other outcomes, if they have identification, we'll generally hold them for uh five-day hold.

So it's the three-day hold, five-day hold.

Um, but um our city attorney's office did let us know that for uh the purposes of being able to mandate spay and neuter, we only have to wait for that the first three days to elapse.

Um so a little bit of background there.

So for first uh stray impounds.

If an animal comes to us um and it's within that three-day holding period, uh we waive fees for generally only one animal.

Um so let's say a litter of puppies comes in, generally we'll say, okay, you can have you know one of these puppies back with no fees, um, but others are gonna have fees.

That could potentially be waived if, say, by a supervisor, if say we got two large dogs in, the person wasn't able to you know afford fees uh for the second dog, um, we might make an exception there.

Uh if we feel like we have a hard we might have a hard time getting that dog adopted out.

And all of these, all of these kind of steps are you know, balancing our capacity and our kennel space, and you know, trying to trying to um trying to weigh everything for the kind of the most benefit for the shelter and for animals overall.

Um if and then in that in that uh first three-day holding period, spay neuter is offered if medical capacity allows, uh, but is not required.

If it's after the three-day uh stray holding period, uh our vets have have said that yes, we can go ahead and mandate spay and neuter after the 72-hour hold, up to the shelter as far as um the outcome of the animal.

So we don't need owner permission in order to spay and neuter that pet.

So um, you know, this is this is one that uh, you know, our vets feel we can do.

We did recently lose a vet, so this is one that might be a little bit of a moving target, but generally, if it's after that three-day hold, uh, we will be looking to spay and neuter.

We also provide a flyer, it's uh like how to prevent your dog from running away.

So that's gonna have a big plug for spay and neuter, it's gonna talk about enrichment, it's gonna talk about um reasons that dogs escape and ways that that can be prevented.

Um, it has a special section for folks who are unhoused as far as keeping those pets contained.

On the second stray impound, if it's within the three-day stray holding period, uh, if the animal is fixed, so the animal comes in, it's already fixed.

Uh we will waive fees again.

Again, just maximizing getting animals out as the priority.

Uh, if not fixed, uh, we will offer to waive the fees.

If they voluntarily allow us to spay it uh neuter the animal and sign a medical release.

If they do not voluntarily allow us to fix the animal, um, we are required to inform them that they can get a hearing.

So that's in the city code.

Um, and that's what I've been working with the code department on to establish.

So that's a whole other process.

Uh, probably not important to get into that here.

Um, but essentially, then that animal would go on a spay neuter hearing hold uh until that that time when that hearing is complete, um, and then the determination of that hearing will let us know if we can uh fix the animal or if there's some extenuating circumstance that the hearing officer determines is um uh grants them an exception, which would be rare.

Um, let's see.

We prevent the we provide the flyer again, and then uh if it's a second impound, uh a supervisor or an animal control officer, if available, should go up and talk to that person and try to get more information about why the animal has gotten loose a second time, talk about the importance of preventing it, the impacts that it has on the shelter, the community when that animal gets loose.

Um, and then for three or more impounds, um, you know, eventually we want to get to the point where every third impound the animal is is already fixed.

Um there are you know animals that um have not been fixed that could be coming in for uh third or more impounds.

In that case, we would follow the protocol for the second impound, um, as far as mandating spay and neuter.

And uh if it is fixed, however, generally we're gonna be charging fees.

Um, this is then the the third time that the animals come to us.

So in that case, again, balancing preventing the animal from getting loose and coming back with life saving, that could those fees could potentially be waived, um, or we might offer an option for um those fees to uh go to a collections agency.

Um, and that would those fees would generally be waived if we say, hey, we think this animal's gonna have a really hard time getting adopted, we're full, we have a positive outcome for this animal right here, we can make space.

Uh that might be a situation where uh we would waive fees in that case.

So there's other details, but I think that's uh that's probably the most important information for everyone to know.

Okay, all right, speakers.

Y'all need a lineup.

Commissioner Bell.

When you talk about the uh the hearing that they can um possibly have if they don't agree to have the span neuter, approximately how long does that take?

It's a good question.

Oh, sorry.

It's a good question.

Um that was my number one concern.

Uh so the code department has been really responsive and um we think it can be done in most cases within 48 hours.

Generally, with the hearing process, there is the potential for someone to reschedule once.

Um if they miss their hearing, as far as from everything I've seen, they forfeit the right to forfeit the right to that hearing.

If they fail the reschedule or they miss it, um so if they were to reschedule, um, so far what we have in the draft protocol we're working on is it must be within 48 hours of the original of the original date.

Um there's still some ambiguity that they still have even after that hearing have the ability to appeal, they can file a writ in the um in the superior court.

So my big thing is okay.

If they pursue that, um, do we have to hold on to this animal even longer for that process and how how do we manage that?

So that's still that's still a gray area, but but yeah, good question.

Commissioner Benedict.

Uh yeah, so um at first, say the first impound, um, you're saying that we waive the fees for the first animal for one animal.

So that is that whether it's spayed or neutered, no matter if it's spayed or neutered.

Um, that's right.

So it's offered, but it's not uh required on first impound.

Okay.

Okay.

And then on the second, um if it's fixed, we waive the fees.

Um if it's not fixed, then we waive the fees if they allow spay and neuter, and then do they pay for that, or do we give them like a low cost, or is it a something that we'll we provide?

We would spay neuter and spay and neuter the animal on site.

Okay, yes.

That's right, yeah, because we're not confident in many cases that the animal will be brought back.

Right, exactly.

Um, and then just to clarify again for the third, um, if it's fixed, then they have to pay fees, and if it's not fixed, and it's the third time, would it still not be fixed?

No, it'd be fixed.

It'd be fixed.

It would be true, it would be treated as the second impound essentially.

The code says second or subsequent impounds.

Okay.

So it's pretty much gonna leave fixed by the second then.

Yes, that would yes, every animal should be leaving fixed by the second if it's a possessor impound and the hearing officer doesn't make an exception.

Thank you.

Commissioner Barragon.

I retracted.

She asked to c the clarification that wanted.

Okay.

Commissioner Morris.

Thanks.

Um, so I don't know who provided this, but thank you for providing this.

This is the ordinance apparently that's appropriate.

Fisher Bagley did.

Thank you for that.

Assuming that this is the current ordinance, a couple of things are curious to me.

Um if the animal is being impounded and they pay a redemption fee, so I'm looking at item B, the first highlighted area, fee established by city council, feeding and caring, and any other actual costs of impoundment.

So it looks as though an actual cost of impoundment could be the cost to spay and neuter the animal.

So we could potentially talk about a fee schedule.

Whether people can pay that or not is a whole different question, but it does look like one could consider spaying and neutering the animal as part of the cost of impoundment.

So that's a question that I'm putting on the table for discussion.

The other question that comes in is further down under required alteration.

One, two, three, the fourth paragraph that the hearing shall be informal, um, and it got further says whether the animal care services manager to look whether the animal care service manager correctly determine the requirement to spay a neuter, or whether there are any extenuating circumstances which justify waiver.

I'm curious what would be considered an extenuating service circumstance.

And I would vote here and now today to basically say there should be no extenuating.

I mean, I cannot, and I'd I want to hear from Ryan or the team, but what extenuating surface circumstances for an animal impounded in a public shelter would be a reason for us to waive requiring you that your animal be altered on a second impoundment.

I wonder if there are any examples of extenuating circumstances you could tell us.

Like maybe they were purebred animals and they were stolen and then they were let loose, but somebody filed a police report, you know, those kinds of things maybe, but are there uh can you share any ideas about extenuating service circumstances?

Sure, yeah, that's a great question.

Um I asked the uh the city attorney's office that question as well.

Um, and there isn't basically the closest we have is exactly what we looked at last month with um with uh spay neuter exemptions for um uh for owning more than four dogs.

So the primary one would be has an age or health condition that with a letter from a very veterinarian said this animal could lose its life or is not safe to be spayed or neutered.

Um, or potentially, you know, the the show dog license one or the if it's a guide dog where perhaps the very unlikely that a a very well-trained golden retriever uh CNI dog would come into the shelter um and uh but a dog like that could potentially have breeding rights through the the agency that that raised the dog, you know, could have breeding rights for it, but again, super niche case.

I think probably the only one uh at least that I can think of would be a medical exemption.

I get you.

That makes more sense to me to think about those sorts of clarification on that.

Would that be a medical exemption that their vet, or would it are can our vet on the at the shelter uh supersede the decision of the local vet who may or may not just do it just like a medical marijuana card and say, hey, okay, stamp.

Yeah, I mean, I I think I think it would probably be I don't know.

I like I would like to think there's a code of ethics that would prevent them from doing that.

Um could a shelter veterinarian override it, I'm not sure.

That's a good question, but uh I don't have the answer.

Okay.

Commissioner Morris, you um, just a from what I was reading and what we have here, I think we're sort of driving towards the idea that a second impound should be altered, except for extremely extenuating circumstances, and I'm not seeing anything in this ordinance that would prohibit us from doing that.

And there's I'm guessing I'm curious if that would be a bigger burden on shelter staff and facility or whether ultimately we could be setting some rules that then the community understands what the rules are, given our challenges in the budget, charging fees.

I get that there could be a lot of complaints about I can't afford the fees, et cetera, et cetera.

But still, we, you know, the idea of constantly not asking people to pay.

I mean, we've all seen people walk up with a box of buck puppies asking for free spay and neuter on those puppies and then telling the next person in the line who's also there for free, not spay and neuter, but free vaccines, that all these puppies are sold.

So, you know, they're coming to get them vaccinated while they're selling them, you know, in the next block kind of thing.

And so asking people to pay the fees seems not unreasonable and on a on many fronts, but I'm curious what other folks' thoughts are about that.

But a blanket discussion of if this is your second impound, this animal's gonna be altered, unless it's completely outside the law.

Yeah, no, I mean, in most cases, um, yeah, absolutely should be.

I think, you know, as far as like the burden on on the shelter, can we handle spay and for every single RTO?

I I don't know.

Again, it's balancing, it's it's where our priorities is it, do we have is our shelter full because we have all these animals that were adopted are just waiting for spay neuter before they can go, you know.

But I think for sure for the second impounds, you know, that animal's shown a pattern of getting loose coming in.

So that's a very sensible um thing to do, you know, even if you know our uh spay neuter capacity is reached.

Um I think it absolutely makes sense regardless of of the code, absolutely makes sense to alter those pets.

There's also some data here that's been provided, and I don't know, I'm guessing Commissioner Bagley is gonna talk to about her sheet, but Ryan, you sent us an email.

Maybe you could walk us through some of the numbers on how many animals actually are second arrival second impounds and are unaltered.

I could briefly read the email, but one second.

Okay, so I'll just I'll just cover the stray um impound numbers, unless you want me to go over the others, but essentially this data looks at um January 1st of 2025 to the end of April in that.

So it's about a year, um, about a year and four or five months, uh, year and five months.

Uh so there were two thousand one hundred and forty-two dogs redeemed during that time.

Of those dogs, one thousand four hundred and forty-seven of them were categorized as stray intake.

So these were not brought in by our officers after an arrest or anything like that, they were stray intake.

Um, of those dogs, a hundred and thirty-five of them were deemed uh a second time or more.

So, vast majority of those dogs are first impound.

Um, and we're also categorized as stray and uh impound.

And of those 135 dog redemptions, 90 dogs were listed as being altered.

So 45 unaltered ultimately out of although this is a second time, so we could be more strict on those 1,447 dogs that came in for a second time.

Yep.

And so that gap, I kind of explained down below that gap is you know, again, this is from beginning of 2025, so I would suspect that skews more towards 2025 with spay and neuter challenges.

Um as far as you know, us just not being as on top of that second impound spay and neuter, but then also um not having this hearing process in place for those dogs that came in in that holding period um was also um has also been a barrier.

So and then the second category is non-stray intake.

Yeah, so you know that one um the law doesn't um allow us to require spay and neuter on that second impound.

So let's say, let's say a year ago a dog uh was found by a community member just running loose and brought in.

Well, there's their stray impound.

Um, and then let's say the dogs brought in another time because uh maybe it it had a bite, maybe it it bit someone in the home, and we end up taking it in under like a bite quarantine.

That second one was not an at-large impound.

Okay.

Um things can get confusing.

I caught one um last week, the week before, that had a previous stray impound and then had been taken in under quarantine and was almost allowed to leave, but it had um the the quarantine was as a result of an uh came after an at-large impound that an officer was involved in.

So that one we did require uh we were able to mandate it.

So, is there anything in any of this that says that we would be prohibited from altering second time impounds?

Not as long as we have the hearing process in place.

We were able to give people their their due process.

Okay, Commissioner Bagley.

Yeah, I have a lot of questions.

Um, and I've been wanting to talk about this for several months.

Um I have questions about fees, um, but I also want to make a statement about the hearing.

It sounds like there have been no hearings for quite a while regarding, let's say a person who is mandated to have their animals spayed and neutered, it's a second or subsequent impound for at large or stray, they don't want to have them fixed, it requires a hearing if they choose to have one and there has not been one in place.

Is that right?

Okay, um I'm very familiar with potentially dangerous and dangerous dog hearings because years ago I was roped into them, and the policy used to be that you didn't use another city department, and that animal control would borrow a supervisor from county to conduct the hearing, one person, and county, because they have the same rule, it mirrors it completely, they would borrow one of your animal control supervisors, and the reason that was important was because they were familiar with the industry and what goes on out in the field, and there at least was an argument that they were not biased, even though they were familiar with the job.

So is there any reason given why that practice is not uh or is not thought to be a prudent one that you would use in the future when you start these hearings up again?

To utilize county staff for the hearings, yeah.

You just call over.

I mean, it's really easy, or you even call Elk Grove, and sometimes the chief comes, sometimes the actual manager or director comes, and you just borrow that person now, so you're not using another city department officer.

On paper and in practice, it seemed to be the unbiased way to do it, yet they had the experience and the knowledge of animal control services.

Yeah, so I mean, have the has the city attorney thought about that, or have you discussed that?

Uh, it might that might be a way to go.

Yeah, I think that's a really good idea.

Um, fortunately uh the the officers, the code officers that will be conducting these hearings were animal control officers for Front Street, so they do have that experience.

That's excellent to hear.

Okay.

Then you really should check out whether or not it's prudent to use another city department because even though a very cursory amount of research that I've done, that rule still is in effect, and maybe it isn't.

Hopefully it isn't, and you can do that without that being challenged.

Um fees.

If I walk in, and I want to redeem my dog that got out, and it's a first time, and you decide you want to hit me with all the fees possible before giving that dog back.

Let me ask you are you going to charge an at-large infraction fee, which under the code is $100.

Currently there's no fees charged.

Why is that, Ryan?

And I ask, um, rhetorically, I I noticed in the audit that one of the things that they mentioned was that Front Street was not collecting fees that could be used as a resource, and there's also some indication that fees like this should go into a sterilization fund so that eventually you've got 45,000 dollars and you can you can fund a high volume event like a mash event, and I bet it would accrue very quickly.

So I'm just kind of wondering why that ball's being dropped when, especially when it's the second, third, fourth, or fifth.

I mean, I pulled and had all the portal data pulled, and there are animals, and I mean multiple animals that have been returned four to five times, unaltered, and I don't know because there's no discussion on whether the fees were also waived, but it just seems fast and loose to me.

And I'm not I'm not accusing you of that.

I'm just saying it sounds like over time it has become fast and loose, and we need to tighten this up, not just for the money, quite honestly.

I think that the shelter has a lot of discretion when I read the code as to your ability to waive.

But I do think that it shouldn't be willy-nilly, where if I go in one day and one person, one staff member's there, and they like me for whatever reason, and they're willing to waive my fees, it seems very selective if the next day I walk in and it's a different staff member and they say no, I don't like her, I'm gonna hit her with everything.

So I I and and I'm gonna assume there's no protocol in place because we know the SOPs are still in the works at some point.

So I think for an honest discussion, we should like make the assumption that yes, the ball's been dropped here, and it has been kind of fast and loose, and it doesn't matter whether you look at the fees that have been waived, and many times they shouldn't have been, because they should have been collected, especially from someone who's irresponsible, and the animals going back second, third, fourth, fifth time, this is the burden on your shelter as to why you have to euthanize.

This is the burden of space, this is the burden of breeding in the community, and it just seems we should be doing everything, every opportunity we have legally to seize the that opportunity to spay and neuter, that is just something that can't be fast and loose.

That is so important.

And when you look at the purpose, both in the code, the county code and the city code, it is to stop these unwanted animals from being brought into the world and to curb that breeding that takes place, and I just don't think we're doing enough.

I do think there should be an incentive incentivization program on that first return.

Okay, you may not legally be able to spay and neuter that animal because the law doesn't mandate it for that first one.

But if you say to that person, look, the fees are three to four hundred dollars, but look, we can work with you.

We will waive that if you just let us span neuter your animal, and we'll charge you a nominal discounted rate for the spay, and I'm not sure what other fees you are required to charge for.

It could be the vaccination fee, I think.

But you let everything go.

I mean, you waive everything if they're willing to spay a neuter on that first time when you don't have that leak that law behind you that can mandate it.

But for the second, third, fourth, and fifth, oh my gosh.

I mean, I I think that I understand the limitations.

You got a small shelter, you've got the vet situation hasn't been perfect.

I get all that protocols are not in place, there are a lot of different explanations, excuses, justifications for the way it's been.

We can tweak this and make this work if we have you on board and your staff on board, and the shelter works as a cohesive unit.

And I just don't see how we can get around it when we know how small you are, and we know how crowded you are, and we know they're breeding.

You know, the reason I wanted to talk about this tonight is because I have heard from the community, and I've heard from people that are out in the camps.

And I would imagine those are some of the most irresponsible.

Now, I do know that you've you have the the at-large and spay designated in your data, and it seems like you can't you have separated the confiscation, but in your portal, you have that there are some confiscations based on stray.

You're right.

Some of them are when an owner goes to jail or goes to the hospital or isn't there, whatever, and they're tied up and they're taken that way.

We're not counting those.

We have to be stray or at large, and it only applies to dogs.

But there is a number in your portal that pertains to field stray impound and over-the-counter stray impound.

And looking at the numbers, I have I've done all the math on your numbers and and the portal numbers, and unfortunately the portal, I've taken it back three years.

But there's a lot here that could be done, and starting with an idea that you don't waive fees if you can talk that person into spay and neuter.

And that there that the policy being followed is consistent, meaning from Monday to Tuesday to Wednesday, that your staff are versed in it, and the protocol is there and it's written out, and they know what to do if they can't remember, and they understand it's for the big picture to cut down on the breeding, to cut down on that dog that goes back to a camp because a guy's cantankerous and he comes and he screams and yells in your lobby, because I know that goes on, screams and yells, and you've got someone behind the desk, and you they know that there's a discretionary policy on fees, and the guy doesn't have a dime to his name, and he's screaming to get his dog back, and his dog is not fixed.

And I know it's easier to just give him back the dog and he's on his way.

But that dog we know goes back to the camps and breeds.

We know that.

So we should take it from that point, knowing that.

And we've just got to we've got to tweak it.

We've got to tune this up.

So I think that I don't know if we're ready tonight, and there's a lot of discussion that takes place.

I knew this was going to be a lengthy deal, but I think there's going to be two motions here.

One is to incentivize that first impound with a policy.

And the second is, and this isn't your fault, that there has to be some follow-up on enforcement on the second, third, fourth impound of stray and at large, which means that we need unfortunately you to report to us maybe quarterly that that it is tuned up, and that they are doing what is mandatory in your code, in your city code, and it's a second motion that would be on enforcement, and you were you're coming back and telling us, yes, we've done what is required of us.

We've talked to the vet staff and they're on board, and when I look at the numbers, I mean they're staggering.

When I go back three years, it's it's like crazy.

It's crazy when I and when I look at and of course I'm adding, I'm adding the confisc confiscate strays because I know they go out to the camps and the dogs are running around, and then all of a sudden the guy shows up and says, That's my dog, and you know, I don't know if a ticket is being given, but the guy says, Well, hell, I don't want it then, and he and you take it, and two days later he's in your lobby saying, I do want my dog back.

That's a redemption if you give him that dog back.

And that was a confiscate, but it was a confiscate that was a stray at large, even though he's there saying, you know, he's always getting out and he's always doing that.

Okay, so that's I just think we need to be honest with this and not get bogged down.

It's very simple.

The rule is there for a reason, and we should be using it, and it will it will help us with every aspect that's difficult in this business at your shelter.

Okay, Commissioner Barragon.

Thank you.

Um I think both Commissioner Morris and Commissioner Bagby had a lot of really good points that were raised here.

Kind of have a more aggressive reading here.

As I read the item here, it's to pass a motion with a recommendation and I feel it to incentivize.

I think that recommendation could look a lot of different ways, including a recommendation for them to consider striking language from the ordinance as written.

So I'm where I'm going with this is that I actually think we're being way too lenient.

I would agree with them on the redemption policy, and I think that we on a lot of things that are before the city, we adopt a zero tolerance policy, which I think this should be.

I mean, the pervasive nature of of the amount of num of animals that are that are being euthanized and the uh inability to take more animals because there's an overpopulation.

The only way to solve this is to be more aggressive about spay and neuter if you are find yourself either because you were negligent or because um you know you're if you you allowed your animal to escape somehow it is not the shelter's responsibility to have to um endure that extra liability and and and that constraint on the resources, and so I'd say that um a really simple way to address this would be in section in uh section 9.44.190 to strike the sentence that says which previously has been redeemed from, which would essentially make it so that you could follow your exist the existing law, um, but on the first instance of redemption, they would have to essentially be um, you know, be spayed or neutered.

I think that's a zero tolerance standard, and I think we need to be that aggressive with something like this.

Alternatively, I'd say um I would agree with the logic that Commissioner Bagley presented in that um we one incentive or recommendation as part of the motion could be that in the first instance when the animal is found at the shelter, there is a mandatory fee to redeem the animal, and the only way to waive that is if they participate in a spay or neuter.

And that's a less aggressive approach.

Um I would be the biggest proponent to be really aggressive with the zero tolerance standard, but I offer that as a middle ground.

That's it, thank you.

Commissioner Few.

Hi, that's me.

Thank you.

Um, is there a fee schedule in place for impoundment?

Is there something actually in place that was used maybe years ago?

Or would there have to be one made up?

I mean, if someone came in, is there a fee you would charge them?

How how does that work?

Yeah, there's a number of there's a number of different fees, um, you know, like an at-large fee, there's an unlicensed dog fee, there's boarding fees.

So that's all it's all in place.

Are they kind of up to date with the time this time, you know, where everything's up, inflation's up, boarding them, feeding them, you know, the staff care of them.

Is that does that is that compensation fair?

Yes, actually, CDD as a department, community development just went through a the fee study um where all of the fees were evaluated, so our dog license and cat license fees went up.

Sorry for anyone, you know, everyone who lives in the city there.

But um, but yes, we did evaluate uh we did evaluate those fees.

And I agree with with Hillary and Ignacio, the same thing, and and Leah, that if they bring them in, and there's a fee, and I don't know if it's not or what that that in turn for waiving that fee, we spare new to your dog.

Then it lies, do we have the space and time and and the vets to do that?

So there's always a caveat to that as well.

Uh Commissioner Verga.

Sorry, it's been a while.

Um okay, thank you.

And I very much agree with Ignacio and Hilary and and Leah, everybody.

What they've been saying about this is great news.

Um, I wanted to give you a little bit of background on um my understanding of how uh some of these fee waiver um ideas and policies came into play because we were very concerned about this um three and four years ago because we know Friends of Front Street paid for the redemption fees um when people came into you know into the shelter we to redeem their animal under the um uh purview or programs of UC Davis Corrett, no barriers.

Okay, okay.

And I know people say all the time, oh Davis, they've got these great programs.

Well, you know, does that really make sense that there's no barriers for animals either getting in or getting out, okay?

And so Friends of Friends Street was paying to um the fees so that these animals could go back out unaltered, okay, to breed out of control.

And at the end of the day, they stopped paying those fees because they found it didn't make a difference in the return to owner uh numbers.

And then you may ask why would they want to do that?

What why would what would be the idea behind paying for fees and paying for the return to owner fees?

It was so that you got that animal out of the shelter and your live release rates looked better, okay.

And and so there's a problem there with manipulating data, and there's a problem there with really having accurate numbers that are reflective of what's truly going on, okay.

And I think now that we're talking about a reset at Front Street, that's just something to keep in mind as we go forward.

And I'm glad to hear that, although I'm kind of surprised or shocked to hear that we're just now looking at this hearing process.

You know, when you look at the data that we've collected here, and Ryan, this isn't about you.

I know you haven't been running the shelter, but I know you've been working there for you know many years, and so I mean, what we see on some of this data that we did, if you look at the last three years, that there are, for instance, 21 instances involving three dogs that the unaltered females were returned seven times, okay.

And if you just look at the numbers, there's uh two times, three times, four times, five times, six times, and this is page two of Hillary Bagley's information.

So when you look at you know, the last three years, these numbers are really alarming.

Um, and one of the things that when um when Commissioner Benedict and uh McDoule and myself took a tour of Front Street in I guess that was in December, um, we noticed in the office area right in the front, is there was a chalkboard, and we saw some names of dogs that we knew from the homeless camps, and we'd gone out with Debbie who's here today, uh Tillotson, who takes care of these dogs in the the river district uh camps, and Debbie will talk a little bit about that tonight, I'm sure, since I see her here.

But we saw these names of dogs, and we were like, Well, what is this about?

Why what what are these dogs' names here?

And they're oh, they're here all the time, and and they're their owners are coming in to redeem them.

And I can tell you the horrific circumstances that we saw these dogs living in in these camps, okay.

We saw in particular there was one um, well, there was many things that'll never get out of my mind, but one had a cage that was locked, a pin, with three young puppies in it, um, that were owned by Anthony, um, and he um I guess routinely sells dogs, sells puppies for money, and he had on numerous occasions been able to redeem his dogs, okay, that were having these puppies that were living in squalor and filth, and you know, really, and I'm not saying all homeless people I'm don't take care of their animals.

I know there's many that do and love their animals, but this is this camp that we saw this that they couldn't even put the water in the bowl, okay, that Debbie and Linda would have to go out to put the water and the food in the bowl, and so um to and and I guess what I want to talk about too, if you look at how many animals were given back unaltered, and you just do the math on how many animals, if they're allowed to breed, that exponentially litter after litter, you know, mama dogs are having three litters a year, cats too, we've got numbers here on cats, and you wonder why we have an overpopulation crisis.

Wonder no more.

This is a huge uh part of this, and so I would absolutely support zero tolerance.

I like that.

In fact, I think we've seen with the city of Sacramento in general, you know, when when uh the mayor and the city council are talking about homelessness, and and they're kind of cracking down on things.

For instance, you know, if if uh if somebody's gonna get housing if they're homeless, they have to go through uh drug uh addiction treatment programs or they have to go through mental health programs.

You know, they have to they have to have some skin in the game, you know, they have to have some responsibility for their own lives before they're just given, you know, uh something uh for free that is of great value.

So I I absolutely support that and I appreciate the um the information that we have here.

Thank you.

Commissioner Asquith concur with much of what was said, so we'll try not to be repetitive, but I want to just ex um share what my experience was as the manager of the downy shelter for two years in Southern California, and we um routinely uh charged the fees and then worked with the owners on the spay and neuter at first um impound.

There was no reason not to.

Um, and um that was just a given.

Um, and and but with that, the other thing I want to do is just validate that there people really cannot afford stuff right now, right?

It's affordability for anything extra right now, whether it be fees to redeem your animal or you know, the broken car or you know whatnot, that the the kids' clothes.

I mean, these days between the inflation and now skyrocket skyrocketing gas prices, um, and who knows where that's going is um that there is an affordability, but with that, we can go with the carrot and we can go with the hammer and the carrot, right?

The hammers the fees, the carrot's the spay neuter, and routinely, and I was involved in conversations.

Usually it started with the front desk.

If it was a second or a third, our senior officers would get involved, and the value really of knocking this out at the first impound is the fact that you're not gonna get potentially you may you're may not get that second or third because the roaming may cease and so forth, um, but you're then you're not having the conversations about the unaltered animals at second, third or fourth impound.

Um, and many times the officers would take the owners, you know, if it's third or fourth impound, we know who they are because they're coming in and everybody knows who they are, and they would go in their office and and they would say, Okay, here's your fees, we're starting at $700 here, blah blah blah, and um so forth.

So that was often successful.

Um, and I just wanted to acknowledge that um uh when I way back in the day in between 2003 and 2006 when I was the volunteer coordinator at the front street shelter, we did um discover that there was a um an account on the books at that time.

The current manager and advocates found out that there was two hundred thousand dollars in a spay neuter fund that had just been sitting, and so we put that two hundred thousand dollars to work with the good old-fashioned spay days and with um the the SAC program and so forth.

Um, so this can be income generating, and it can also be income generating with the fact that the city is sitting on a massive budget deficit right now, and if we can show that this is one way that we can participate, we it may not generate a lot of money, but I know that they are looking at raising fees because I heard it on the news the other day.

So um, and then in the event that they can't, again, like everybody has said, they can't afford it, great.

We're um let's get your dogs scheduled for spay neuter and we'll have it back on X day.

Commissioner Wells or Treat.

Um I just have uh I think a couple quick questions.

Ryan, do we still have a partnership with Bradshaw Spay Neuter Clinic?

Uh well, we have um our nonprofit um funds has funded community uh cat surgeries there, just cats, no dogs go there.

Um things have changed recently, they had to had to reduce the surgeries.

So I don't know, I don't believe we're sending um dogs there.

I know.

Okay.

Um and are the fees that have been waived is are they being waived because we're concerned that they won't take the dog back if they have to pay?

Why were the fees being waived?

Do you know?

Yeah, uh, like as far as first impound fees, yeah.

Yeah, so um the idea behind uh waiving the fees um is to increase life saving.

Um, you know, if someone we know that you know, folks who lose their pets, there can be uh very often an income uh uh a correlation with low income there.

We know that um many, the majority of our stray dogs come from some of the lowest income areas of Sacramento.

Even when we charged fees, we would very often, if not the majority of the time, waive them in order to get that dog out of the shelter.

Um, so that's the that's that was the reason for for going to no fees.

Um yeah, I'll I'll talk more, I wanna hear from everybody, but I can go in more depth.

And then if if we were to do this negotiation where if you let us alter your animal will waive the fees, how does the payment for the altering happen?

Uh we would generally so if if they agreed, sorry, if they agreed to let us fix their pet for no fees, we would basically eat the cost of the the spay neuter.

We could uh on the second impound, it actually says that the spay neuter will be at the owner's expense.

Right that said the number of owners that could actually afford that would be great, very low, I would say.

Um so yeah, so they wouldn't they wouldn't be charged a fee in that case.

Commissioner Morris or Garcia.

I know I had my hand up.

Um I guess I was trying to figure out where it says the piece about on first impound, we cannot require being altered.

And so I I see 9.44.190 second sentence or second line says any dog impounded for being at large, which was previously redeemed, which previously has been redeemed.

So that implies that it's a second or further.

So it implies that on a first impound, you can take your dog, but it doesn't really say that.

And I get it, but if we're talking about we're gonna make them motion, maybe we want to put some language in here to change the ordinance to say, I mean, I'm kind of wondering why we're letting them take them home the first time without being altered.

I I'm just putting it on the table.

This is a dog that's been found stray uh or loose.

I wonder why we're letting them take the dog home.

And most of us agree that having a dog altered is in the dog's health best interests, I think, and certainly not having animals procreate.

I don't know if there's any communities that require that.

I'm curious if anybody knows if there are communities that require it on first impound, but I guess I wonder why we wouldn't want to alter them after a first impoundment.

And if that's too big of a hill to climb, fine, I'll I'll live with second impoundment.

But um we all know there's too many animals out here, um, and why not consider you know, and I I don't know.

I just that that's the only place I can see, and Hillary maybe you can point out, but that's the language I see that suggests that it's a it's subsequent to a first impound.

I believe that's why Commissioner Barragon uh suggested striking that verbatim.

Yeah, but I wonder if saying more, just more plainly, you know, if your animal is impounded by this municipal shelter, it will be altered unless you can prove some extenuating circumstances for your return.

Commissioner Barrion?

I'll be really brief.

I wasn't aware of the no borders program, so thank you for bringing that to my attention.

Uh in policy, I fundamentally really agree with that idea.

I wanted to acknowledge that, but then also it was something Commissioner Asquith you shared, which is the real problem of affordability right now.

And so to be sensitive to that, I was just gonna without retracting anything I already said because I still stand by that, but I I think if on that first redemption there's a mandatory fee um alternative.

They agree to spare neuter with no fees, or third, maybe for those folks, it's a um mandatory, painful two-hour course with modules like we all did for ethics training.

And I mean, I mean it because you could be explaining to them the value behind a spay and neuter, like how to properly care for the animal to prevent the issue from happening again.

That might incentivize them halfway through to say, actually, let's just spay and the pet.

So I don't know, just think outside of the box.

How do we how are we sensitive to those folks that really can't afford it?

Um, but also discourage them from not accepting a spare neuter.

Thank you.

Commissioner Benedict.

Yeah, I I agree with the other commissioners.

I mean, it seems like we're all on the same page here, and we all agree.

When I see a numbers like 24 cats and 23 dogs in 10 days killed.

I mean, this problem is coming at us very aggressively, and I think it's time to be very aggressive in it in a solution.

And I I guess we're gonna have some language now and a motion with some language.

I think it'd be nice to include somehow in that language.

Um if we have control of the fees, can we make the fee very high for that first redemption?

So it's a very high fee or take it out altogether, but a high fee or a very low fee to alter, like it's just like such a no-brainer, you know.

Um or like commissioner um um Barragon said, uh, you know, just have it so that there is no redemption fees, um, only altering, you know.

That's it.

That's we really have to fix the problem.

Otherwise, we're just putting band-aids.

We gotta turn off the faucet.

That's all I have.

Um so one thing I do know that if throughout the first redemption, if they're unaltered, the fee is significantly higher than if they are altered, but with us not charging for any fees, then it's a moot point.

Um, and I agree, while it is very hard for a lot of people to afford things right now, we we do need to do something because the city is taking on the care of all these animals and providing and the staff and all of that, and somehow we have to be able to pay for all of this.

Um, you know, with the city being in such a budget crisis, it's not like we're the tax dollars are really covering it.

Um, and we have certain people that are certainly utilizing the services a lot more than others.

Um, so there needs to be some sort of balance.

Uh there's a separate uh fee for boarding, is that correct?

Are we collecting any of that?

Not on the first impound.

Okay, so they can leave them there for with the shelter for a period of at least 72 hours for free, and they don't nobody has to pay to redeem that which is a problem.

That's that's a problem.

There we go.

If we are collecting fees, then we yes, we could potentially be able to have funding for even more spay and neuter or more staff to, you know, really help improve things, or hey, get ahead and start saving up money for a new shelter.

Um, and these are all the things that if we because it looks like uh front street has been waiving fees for quite some time.

Uh so even when financial times were better, we were kind of you know cutting our our nose to spider face by waving everything and letting people come and take the animals.

Uh which puts us further into this predicament of budgetary crisis and overpopulation.

Um I appreciate that uh since you have it seems like since you've taken over the hearing is now getting put back into place and all that, which is great.

Um, you know, it was interesting and disturbing to hear that it hasn't been happening for quite some time.

Um, this is something that absolutely should have been.

I mean, this is the code, this is what we're supposed to be following.

Um, one of the suggestions I have is on this code is to strike the line about animal care service manager can waive it, maybe put in their times one, but I mean, a blanket waiver, uh, because it doesn't certainly doesn't seem that it's been used for only limited to extenuating circumstances for some time.

I don't know under as interim if if you're more judicious about it, but it certainly doesn't seem like it's been uh limited to the circumstances of which it was written for the purpose of um anyway.

That's what I have.

Uh Manager Hinderman.

Sure.

Well, thanks everyone for comments.

Um just wanted to jump in on a couple things.

Um, so as far as um the two or more impounds, we're totally on board, every team's on board, uh, veterinary veterinary teams on board, animal controls on board, homeless outreach teams on board.

Um, so I'm happy to report quarterly on that.

Awesome.

Yeah.

Um for the fees, I think it's it's certainly worth considering for budgetary reasons.

Um, the the first fees.

Um, it's been a number of years since I looked at it.

I don't think it was a tremendous um amount of money uh each year, but you know, it would it would help.

Um, you know, I would I actually ran some of the initial uh numbers, Commissioner Virgo on the whether the return to owner rate had improved and reported back that it hadn't.

Now correlation doesn't equal causation, there could have been other factors that dropped or that kept the RTO rate the same.

Um, you know, if I'm someone who's lost a pet and I see that pet on the website, and you know, um if I have some hesitation towards government or I feel like I don't have the funds, and I see no fees to pick up your pet for the the first time.

Um I think that would probably help a lot of people be encouraged to go and pick up their pet.

We're actively promoting uh, like, hey, come down and get your pet.

That's that's the spirit behind it, is that if we can actively promote, hey, there's no fees, there's no barriers to come down and pick up your pet, that that could increase RTO rate.

Um, it's not for the purpose.

I just want to rephrase it's not for the purpose of uh making numbers look better, it's for the purpose of saving lives.

So I want to make sure we're assuming good intentions.

Um so that that was the reason for it.

But you know, I I as you guys know I'm big on data, I'm big on testing, um, and so I think that's certainly something we could look at as far as budgetary reasons.

As far as requiring spay neuter on first impound or saying, you know what, you have to pay fees or your pet is getting fixed, like everything that we talk about.

There's pros and cons to that, right?

So it might prevent, so it's again talking about first impound animals here, it might prevent that pet from breeding, which might prevent one of those offspring from coming to our shelter one day.

It's possible.

Um, and it also might prevent that pet from roaming and coming back to us subsequent times.

However, let's also think about the cons of of this, right?

Is we know that in that time period, almost a year and a half, 135 of those dogs came back in a second time, but 1,312 did not.

Um if we were to take on that extra, you know, if we look at it as a year, that's about a thousand more dogs a year, that's gonna have some impacts, right?

We're already struggling to keep up with spay neuter, already struggling to keep up with medical care for the animals that we have.

Um, you know, there's there's other goals that we have, you know, that we've we've discussed, I know that are important to you uh related to cats and and other things.

Um, and so in my mind, I think of probably if I went back and talked to the veterinary team and I said, hey, could we handle what would happen if we took on an extra thousand dogs every year?

I think uh that would lead to a couple of effects.

One would be we go back to foster to adopt, which I know isn't popular, um, in order to because we don't have the capacity, we gotta put this pets somewhere, or we keep those animals on site, and we also keep on site that extra thousand dogs to, while they're waiting to be spayed or neutered, potentially for one, two weeks, that's gonna create a big impact on kennel space.

That's going to decrease the outcomes.

So when we're looking from things from a shelter, we're always looking at like the net impact on animal welfare.

We always want to, you know, there's rarely a perfect decision, but we're always trying to choose the decision that's gonna lead to the the most uh animals helped they're saved.

And I it from my perspective, I'm happy to talk to the team about these ideas and report back.

Um so it's not just you know my perspective, but I think requiring spay neuter and having this massive amount of dogs added to our uh to our medical staff's workload, I think is is going to result in worse outcomes, higher euthanasia, um for animals than allowing these animals to go out, most of which, the vast majority of which never do come back to us.

Uh I do want to say um that you know, for the animals that are kind of being returned many times, uh, you know, I'd be interested to see what um you know what percentage of those are you know from confiscations or sweeps.

I would say most probably are you know from the unhouse community, like you mentioned.

Um but you know, that is that is something that we've looked at a lot of times.

Those animals are difficult to place as well.

Um so they should absolutely be fixed if they're going back, you know, uh, you know, three, four, five, six times.

Uh absolutely no, absolutely no excuse for that.

Um, but as far as going back in general, you know, it is it is that balance is can we find a home for this dog?

Is it better for this dog's welfare to go back, you know, um into this situation, or potentially not uh find placement with us.

Those are the decisions we have to make every day.

Um, you know, today I had an owner contact me really upset because it was the dog's fourth impound, and we said, no, you absolutely have to pay fees.

We can't we can't keep doing this, right?

Because when we start getting into those high those those high numbers of intakes, there's there's two things.

There's two considerations.

One, like you've all mentioned, shelter impact, right?

This dog keeps coming in, keep takes time to process it in, we're having to feed it, it's taking up space, as opposed to if we adopt if we're able to adopt this dog out, putting it in a home where it's not going to continue to escape.

So that's one consideration.

The second um is the dog safety, right?

This dog keeps getting out, keeps getting loose on the streets, that could pose a risk for that dog, or if it has issues with other animals for those other animals out there.

So that was a that's a decision that I upheld and said, no, we're not gonna return this dog uh without fees.

It's you know an adoptable dog.

We should be able to find um, you know, a better life for it, um, but in situations where we can't, like if that dog was gonna have a negative outcome, then we might consider you know returning the dog.

It's it's it's a a lot of these situations are are very case by case.

It's you know, we try to create the most detailed protocol we can, but um there's some really tough decisions that we have to make every day.

So um just food for thought for your conversation.

Yeah, I just had um I'm gonna run by some fees that I looked up.

I don't know, I know which ones are accurate.

I'm not sure which ones I'm you'll tell me if I'm not sure about it.

Okay, so a dog is at large, it's brought in either over the counter or your officer picks it up, it's at large, someone comes in to claim it.

At large infraction fees a hundred dollars, and that's per the code, and it's in 944 020, 944 280, and 944 180.

I can give you guys that if you need it, talk to me later.

First redemption fee is 40 bucks, and I don't know if it's changed, if it's gone up or if it can go up.

Boarding is somewhere between 10 to 30 dollars a day.

Ryan, you should know that how much it is a day.

Is it I mean, I know years ago it wasn't very much, but I don't know.

I would have to look it up.

Okay, okay.

And then licensing, don't forget, for a one-year license, if they're altered, it's $25.

If they refuse to alter, it's a hundred dollars for a one-year.

Rabies vaccine runs about 10 bucks, and you know, Front Street is providing it for free throughout the community.

So I came up with like $300, hoping it would be like $500 that we could waive, and I think that that would probably be workable.

Um I still say that for the alteration supplies, they should probably have to pay that, but if you ended up waiving everything, that's within your discretion, and and we would be fine.

I mean, I know I would be fine with that if the animals fix.

The other thing is that I remember years ago, an animal control, many animal control officers calling and saying, how can we keep this dog?

We don't want to give this dog back.

And I said, Well, don't you have a ton of fees you could charge?

And they'd say, but Hillary, the nonprofits in the churches come in willing to pay them.

So it's not just friends of Front Street.

There are nonprofits that come in and they're willing to pay these fees.

So once again, on your second and subsequent impounds, don't get bogged down with the fact that they can't afford it.

He has a discretion to wave.

They're altered.

Okay.

So that was kind of a little bit outside of our discussion tonight.

But those people, I mean, to me, how irresponsible is that?

Multiple times.

It doesn't make any difference.

Altered or unaltered.

They should have to pay something.

I mean, how many times are we going to give them a break?

And then the other thing, um, Ryan, I, you know, I had to do all these divisions with your numbers, and I'm just looking at your numbers right now, not my numbers, because my numbers are really going back the three years, and they are very, very high.

Um, 1,312 first redemptions over that 16-month period is about 82 per month or 21 per week.

Now, I don't know the capacity of your vet clinic, but that's something to ask them.

And then for the second and subsequent, you've got 135 over 16 months, which is nine a month on an average.

And it seems to me that that and a minimum is doable for you for any vet clinic that's attached to a shelter.

So, um, I don't know where this commission wants to start with the ones that are absolutely in violation of the city code to get the money and to get that animal fixed.

However, but we should we should move forward on this, or the incentivizing that first redemption.

I have good language here.

I mean, I can I can throw it out there.

It's not the hardcore one that you're talking about, um, Mr.

Botragon, but it is the middle ground.

Questioner Wells retreat.

Yeah, I'm sorry, Ryan.

I I didn't ask this first time around.

How much does it cost to spay your neuter an animal that comes into the shelter?

Just approximately I don't mean it down to the penny.

Yeah, I mean it's hard to say because it's it's employed staff, right?

So it's it's not it's not like um you know sending it out to a private clinic where it would cost you know a thousand bucks or whatever an ordinate amount it is.

Um so I don't I don't know off the top of my head how we calculate what it costs to spend, it's probably a combination, it's probably a calculation of staff time supplies.

So I could um I could report back on it though.

Just thinking about the the two costs, right?

The the all the fees and the costs and waiving all of that to pay for altering versus the cost of charging them for altering and waiving, you know what I mean?

I'm just okay numbers in my head, right?

Yeah, I I can look it up and report back.

Okay.

Which would be more money coming into the shelter versus the yeah, it depends.

I mean, it depends how long that dog's been there because those boarding fees can add up pretty quick.

Um, so you know, I guess it would be like cost of spay neuter versus uh if it we just charge the spay neuter fee versus cost of all other fees, including boarding for I don't know, three days or something like that.

Yeah, go figure that out.

Commissioner Benedict.

Uh yes, I um, you know, first of all, I'm so anti-waiving fees of any kind in any situation.

Um maybe because and also free adoptions, by the way, because um I just don't think that if if somebody loses their dog and they need to come to a shelter to redeem the dog, um, frankly, I think anybody who loves their dog would beg borrow steel and do anything to get the money.

I don't care if it's 10,000, I will get it to get my dog.

Um, so charging even $20 for um j just something that says that you care enough to go get your dog, you know.

Um so that's my two cents on waiving fees it of any in any way, um, and that includes and that's not on this topic, but that includes free adoptions.

You've got to have some skin in the game, you know, gotta have some skin in the game and show that you care.

Commissioner Morris, back to me.

Um, a couple of things in terms of trying to figure out how to handle this or put our arms around it.

I really again appreciate that you gave us this language, and it feels like the idea of putting something forward to the PNPE committee would in my mind be suggested edits or m modifications to the ordinance, which I feel is a little awkward to do just sitting here tonight just seeing this in the first time.

So it would seem to me that it would be wonderful if Commissioner Bagley, I'd be happy to work with you.

Commissioner Treat and I worked on an ordinance one before, so I don't know if if that's an area that Commissioner Treat wants to work on, but if a few of us got together and drafted some proposed edits to this current ordinance to get really concrete on what it is that we're looking to ask from our council.

Um I notice in the top of this page item C, it actually specifies about what might be extenuating circumstances.

Too young, too old, too ill, too injured to be spayed or neutered, and then it's got some fees in here.

I'm betting these fees are old and probably been updated, so this looks like it probably needs some updating anyway.

Um, so it seems like there could be some redrafting of a proposed ordinance change given the dialogue that we've had tonight of folks that are thoughtful about that.

Um back to your question, Commissioner Wells, about the cost.

Um I had the good fortune yesterday to spend about six hours in our uh clinic, and we altered about 20 animals, um, seven cats and X dogs.

I don't remember the full count.

But that was two vets, two RVTs, one animal control technician, three volunteers, and then staff transferring them to the kennels and back and forth.

So whatever the salaries would be for those people, the supplies for the um uh the anesthesia, the um kenneling, the cleaning of the kennel, the the laundry, um it's it's a fair amount of just general cost of doing business at this shelter, but um trying to figure out how you would put your hands around the cost.

I mean, you could certainly figure out what other community bets charge.

Um, but those are sort of the a vision of what happened at least at our shelter for trying to get about 20 animals spay neuter in about six hours, while also changing dressings on three animals with broken limbs and uh a couple of other things going on.

Commissioner Berga.

Um I just wanted to address Ryan's concerns because I know they're real about the challenges that make sense that's you know, to add that many more animals to the spay neuter um uh protocols that you currently have.

Um, but I think that there are solutions there.

And I know, for instance, some of us commissioners went to the SBCA uh recently earlier in the year, and we've got a follow-up on that to ask them to help.

They have the lion's share of the money for the the area as a nonprofit.

I think they have 34 million in assets right now.

And um, so we were talking to them about helping with Spay neuter more because the the operative work is increased Spay neuter.

And so I think there are opportunities there with Friends of Front Street with the SBCA to potentially, you know, bring together the community to raise some money.

I think we'd all be happy to meet with friends of Friend Street and pitch that we would participate in a campaign to raise money for something like this.

And then the other thing I want to point out is that if you reduce the number of animals that are consistently coming into the shelter, you know, you're reducing your intake.

So even though you're spending more money and you have because it is very um valuable real estate, all those kennels are, and and you have that that concern about if we have them come in and then we have to house them for very long, there's gonna be a problem there with other animals potentially losing their lives.

But I think there is a balance with reducing the number of animals in our population, and then again, there are other resources like their SNP spay neuter, you know, that's a mobile clinic because I I hate to take away our existing infrastructure of spay neuter from the community, but there are you know entities like SNP Spay neuter that can maybe come in once a week and provide spay neuter services.

Um and so you know, I think we'd be happy to, I think, as a commission, assist with that.

And I think the other thing that I'd like to point out, time is of the essence.

You know, time is always of the essence if you're that animal in that shelter whose life is at stake, and if you look at how many animals are dying on a regular basis because there is no space or there are no homes, time is of the essence.

So I think if Ms.

Bagley has a recommendation, we can have a motion and a vote, and we'll see what happens.

If it doesn't work out, we can go back to the drawing board, but I would certainly be supportive of that.

Thank you.

Yeah, and and I'll just I just want to say like I'm I'm not opposed to the idea of spaying every or every animal that comes, I would love that idea.

You know, I think really we're all on the same page vast majority of of ideas.

It's just um it's just uh the implementation, you know.

I would love to have a full-scale, robust, you know, TNR clinic, for example, and all the things that that you all want as well.

So it's it's about you know understanding what the impacts will be, you know, and that's kind of my role on the commission is is just to kind of share kind of the sheltering realities working there on a day-to-day basis as far as what we're facing.

Um and if we don't have the ability, what problem solving can we do to create the ability?

So I'm very open to any of those conversations, and I don't, you know, I don't mean for any of my comments to um to mean that I'm not in support of the idea of spaying and neutering all of these animals.

Um but uh just wanting to share the realities for your consideration as you move something forward.

Commissioner Berga.

Oh, contrary.

Uh just a few questions.

Um, so what is the timeline for a dog to recover from a spay or neuter?

And we're speaking hypotheticals, right?

Like if we were to implement these fees, right?

What is a timeline for a dog to recover from being spay or neutered?

Do they would they stay in the shelter for a few days before giving it back to the owner, or is it just like they get it done, they recover with the owner.

Is there like a gap in between?

Um just just because is there like if there is a gap, is there a guarantee that the owner would come back for the dog?

Or like what what is that what is that?

I don't know the gap of when they're getting spayed or neutered, staying in the shelter for a few days and then calling the owner back, or how does that work?

It's a really good really good question.

So there's a couple gaps, right?

So there's um there's the waiting for spay neuter, so we have a spay neuter surgery list, right?

Um, and uh so for that, it could be a week, it just depends on our our schedule.

I mean, we've we've been at points where it's been weeks out, we've been at points where it's months out.

That's when we had to turn to foster to adopt, um, and so that's one gap.

So right now I would say, let's say maybe a few days to a week, we're doing pretty good right now.

We did recently lose a veterinarian, so we're hurting there.

Um, but uh so there's that gap.

When the animal gets fixed, it'll get fixed um in the early part of the day, and it'll be ready to go home that same day.

I will say that um some owner, so you know, we we do work with the on-house population a lot.

They can you know, struggle with communication, transportation, so it is um there have been you know, it it is advantageous to get that animal out while the person is there, they may not um you know arrive the day that the surgery is happening, it might take several days beyond that, so that can kind of increase that length of stay.

So it kind of depends.

But as far as to answer your main question, um it gets fixed, it can go home the same day.

Okay, thank you.

Um, and I mean we're talking about if we do implement this.

Um, I mean, we're gonna have an influx of those dogs that are getting or you know, spayed or neutered, so I guess what are the chances that they would go home that same day if we're getting an increase in spare neutered.

Um I don't know, I think I'm just like kind of thinking about the increase of it.

I think you're confusing the the all animals assuming that there's someone to take them home.

I mean, think of you know, if you had it just went and bought a new got a new dog that was you found on the street and was unaltered, and you took it to your personal vet, you're they sent it back that same day, even uh you know so it's the same thing with shelter that the wait is only gonna be to availability for an appointment.

Okay, thank you.

Good good discussion, everyone.

Um, and I agree, uh I'm I'm against waiving fees.

There should be some minimal something.

But uh I've also very much in favor of the carrot as well for the first redemption that you know, although I still think you should at least pay something towards that spay neuter or the boarding costs as they are only like ten dollars ten fifteen, whatever it is, something personally.

I have two huskies, one of them can open up every single door in my house and can use open lock the dead bolt so he can leave whenever he chooses.

Um GPS collar, best thing invested in ever.

Um, but he has except for when I got him from Front Street, he has not been back because usually he's caught in the neighborhood before he gets too far.

But I, you know, I know that I would spend anything to get him back should he visit his origins at Front Street.

So um, you know, that's if you're if you're a pet owner, there is an expense, and there should there should be that understanding that if you are going to be responsible for another life, that there is some cost to it.

But um, Commissioner Asquith here on I just wanted to add on the cost per animal for surgery.

It per animal, it depends.

Um, because a small uh healthy puppy is gonna take maybe five minutes from a good surgeon, and if you have an older pregnant female with pyometria and all the things, that's obviously gonna take longer and money is time.

Time is money.

So as the conversation is closing, I would advocate for having that flexibility on the first intake of um not necessarily having requiring the spay neuter, but definitely charging the fees and having that conversation, having that carrot and hammer and the f and the first, and like you said, the chart you know, even if it's ten dollars, it's you know, charging something, um, and then the second is more of the mandatory.

Uh we I'm sure do we have any?

We do not have any speakers for this item.

I came in late.

Can I even put the paper over there?

I came in about five minutes late.

Oh, if you would like to speak on this item if you're willing to take speakers now, you can call up.

Oh boy, you guys crawl up all kinds of things for me.

Um, my name's Debbie.

This is Julie Mose.

And um my rescue partner, Linda, couldn't be here tonight.

But I'm thank you all for being here and just taking the time to hear what we have to say.

I will come every chance I get.

That's my passion.

And it's a whole different world than the average dog that people deal with every day.

The spay and neuter is critical.

It's not, it's absolutely without a doubt critical that these animals get spayed and neutered, especially if they belong to an unhouse.

Because I'm going to tell you what, they don't care.

And we've been, I we're down there every day.

We're down there feeding them, we're down there giving them water, we're giving them shelter.

We we're out there in the pouring down rain trying to put up something that shelter the dog, and the owners that are in there having a good old time.

You know, they don't care.

So we care.

You know, and the big thing is is that we have to depend on you guys to say, okay, yeah, we're we're gonna we're gonna we're gonna get them fixed.

We're not we're not gonna just let them walk out the door and have unfortunately pitties have a lot of puppies all the time, but I can tell you story after story where I personally batch was born pouring down rain outside in the mud, the owners are down gambling at the casino down here, and um half the puppies were drowning in the mud.

So mama doesn't know, she's just trying to do what she can.

I I had a puppy that I had to take into the vet the next day, but I took him home in midnight because it was raining and it was so cold out there, and he's so skinny, and he was only like a week old.

You know, there's a whole nother thing happening out here when you talk about spaying neuter for dogs, because they don't care.

I'm just gonna be really honest with you.

Thank you for your comments.

Your time is now complete.

Okay, but anyway, whatever you can do to help these guys, I would truly appreciate it.

Thank you, Chair.

We have no more speakers.

Yeah, you can ask a clarifying question.

So um I'm just curious, um, how easy it is.

I shouldn't say how easy it is.

Maybe that's the wrong question.

How many animals right now would you say you know have have gone to the shelter and been released numerous times?

All the time that are unaltered.

As a matter of fact, we go down and pick them up for some of these people because we've actually built a rapport with some of these homeless people.

You know, it's not about a judgment, it's just about try we care about the dogs.

That's what we care about.

So if they're we know the dog, we don't want that dog sitting down in a shelter getting put down, but then again, some of the owners, so but we had um Anthony, you mentioned Anthony.

Anthony is notorious, and one of these days I'll probably end up in jail because of that man.

But he has puppies after puppies after puppies after puppies, and and he sells them.

He sells them.

So if we get them fixed, then that's one more puppy that's not gonna die.

I can give you my numbers for three years.

We kept track of every little thing when it came to uh puppies.

We had 155 born in the camp that we dealt with, and there's probably five or six individuals within that camp area.

Okay, we had 155 born, we had 49 die, just auto just died because they were born.

Um we had 16 of them, they kept 16 of the puppies, which means that they were just handing them out to anybody or whatever, okay.

Um it's beyond frustration to see those.

And it's hard, man.

I I ask any of you to come down with us when we're dealing with this because it is a different world down there.

So Debbie, I have a question for you because I have been out with you.

You have.

Yes, you have.

Yes, you have, and um, I I know that you had, you know, known a number of the different dogs, and I one of them I think was Siroc, that was a primary primary sire for many of the puppies.

Yes, yes, he is, and and we've been to the been to Front Street parking.

Do you know if he's been to in and out of Front Street?

He's been, yeah, in and out.

Um, the owner, adamant.

I have worked on this man for the longest time, trying to get every reason I can think of to get him to just allow us, and they finally actually let us take care of the two females that they had, which were having puppies so fast.

It was amazing.

And they finally allowed us to get the two females, but the two males, they will not do, they will not do because they want them breeding.

Okay, so even though they know medically, these dogs are gonna suffer, you know.

Okay, thank you.

Uh one more question.

And because I think this is a really important point here, is that you know, Debbie is will pay out of her pocket for these animals to be spayed and neutered, but she she runs into resistance.

They do not want these animals spayed and neutered, which is why if you have the opportunity in a setting like this, if they're coming into the shelter, that you must take advantage of it to prevent future litters and to prevent exactly what she's talking about here now.

That this is a common problem in Sacramento.

And the puppies that suffer the most, and we had Anthony, those 12 blast puppies that he had born, when it was raining here, what about two months ago or whatever?

When it was pouring down rain and everything, they came in and moved them.

The cops came in and cleared them.

That's another whole subject, but they came and cleared them out.

Well, when they cleared them out, everybody ran.

So all these dogs are sitting out there and pouring down rain, chained up.

The puppies are getting soaking wet.

So they they came down and they took the puppies in overnight in the mama, and then they brought them right back the next day.

Those three puppies that were in locked in that cage, they actually made it into the shelter and they were released.

Yeah.

That's so you know, that's where my frustration lies is that um until you actually experience it, until you actually go down there and see it.

Because I gotta be honest with you, when I first started doing this, I went, Oh, this is no problem, man.

We're just gonna go down there, feed them once in a while, give them a little bit of food, a little water, you know, pet them, and everything's gonna be great.

No, it's an absolute war down there.

It's an absolute war.

And I will concur.

In fact, the reason I asked was um after going out with Debbie, um, because one of the things I do at work is I look at the intake every day and I look at the dogs that have come in, and I recognized Sirac, and I recognized because how can you not remember the name of Fatality?

Yes, which is one of the dogs named having gone to Front Street and then they were back out unaltered.

Yeah, and this was this was a couple of months ago.

Yeah, a few months ago.

Actually, might have even been December, but um, yeah, that that is you know, just echoing what the importance of this conversation that we're having, and my appreciation to uh manager Hinderman for really pushing the uh second redemption, uh they must be altered, uh, because I can tell you that those ones when we had gone on the tour, I recognized some of the names from when we visited, and then I later saw them again on the intake list.

So let me tell you, these are not bad dogs.

These are not bad dogs.

We have fatality was the sweetest dog, just want to say.

Yeah, it's not fatality is I hate that name.

Yes, but the bottom line is is that we had five fixed that belong to one person.

She ended up getting her main dog shot and killed by a cop.

I I'm not gonna talk about that, but the bottom line is she went crazy and she just let her dogs go.

And she's had these dogs for a while.

It's not like it was a one-day thing, and we found them all, and we actually brought them to Front Street and got three of them adopted out right, right?

And people go, Well, what do you tell them it's from a homeless person?

Well, I don't know what that needs to be said necessarily.

Because I think it puts a judgment on the dog.

Well, Debbie, I want to thank you for your for your time and your dedication.

I'll talk all day long.

I sorry.

But thank you, thank you very much, and thank you for speaking.

All right, thank you.

Uh Commissioner Benedict.

Uh, yeah, this is this.

Yeah, I know this stuff happens, but this is just it's sickening that we could have stopped this, and we did not.

And um, it's this is just one instance, I'm sure.

Um, so I want to pose the question, and I'm not sure how we do it or when we do it, or if we do it here.

Um, we need some sort of uh we need an ordinance to stop this from happening.

You can't just breed take a dog and breed it in a cage continuously.

We need some breeding, which I've been wanting to do forever, but we don't have anything about that.

Anyone can just grab a dog, breed it continuously, and just make a ton of money off this dog and just um keep creating more and more of a problem.

So, um I don't know, Commissioner Bagley, how we do this or when we do it, or how we make a motion to do it.

Uh put yourself on the list, Commissioner Bagley.

I am on the list.

I I did try.

Oh, maybe help me.

I was asking her specifically.

We'll get to her, Commissioner Hayes.

Oh, it was only to kind of speed things up, okay.

Uh, Commissioner Asquith.

I Commissioner Bagley.

When this city is ready for a mandatory span neuter, ordinance hauler.

It's already been drafted.

The county's already sending it for well, we'll form a group and we'll go through it.

That would be fine, or we can do it through breeding permit.

That's the other type.

But I've done so much research in this, I have binders on it.

And if you're interested, I'll make you a binder so you can get up to speed and then we can meet at my house and have a working group.

We can do all of this.

But the city has to be, I don't know, spend hours on this and have the city say, No, we're not interested.

So, you know, you work on that.

Everybody work on that.

Okay, the other thing is I'm ready to make a motion on and and okay?

Okay, now this would be an incentivizing on the first.

And if somebody wants to make a different motion or tighten this up, okay, I know how you do it.

You know how to do it.

All right, can I make a motion?

Yeah, go ahead.

Yeah.

All right, then I'll do that.

I'd like to make a motion.

Am I speaking?

I don't know.

I'd like to make a motion to I'd like to pass a motion to send a recommendation to the PE committee regarding redemption of animals by their owners, including incentivize incentivization of spay and neuter on the first impound with a recommendation to strike out of section 9.44190.

The words which previously has been redeemed from the animal care service center after impoundment for being after uh after impoundment for being at, and then to insert in that area shall pay, shall pay all shelter fees incurred, including redemption, boarding, and licensing fees, or and then we resume to the language in there, shall be spayed or neutered at the redeeming owner's expense prior to a second or subsequent redemption with the final strike on the last sentence of that paragraph.

Final strike, the sentence that follows.

Um the animal care services manager may waive this requirement when there are extenuating circumstances that justify the waiver, yeah.

I'd like to see, I'll second that.

Do you have it right now?

What he just gave you?

Not exactly.

I can repeat it.

I can repeat it and read it without the striking.

So you can do that.

I'd like that.

Can you just read it?

Yes, so what I'm proposing the section to read is in order to reduce the likelihood that dogs allow to be at large shall breed unwanted animals, any dog impounded for being at large, shall uh any for being at large uh shall pay all fees in incurred shall pay all shelter fees incurred, including redemption, boarding, and licensing fees, or shall be spayed or neutered at the redeeming owner's expense prior to a second or subsequent redemption.

That's it.

And I'd like to second that.

Go ahead.

Are you taking off the language that makes spay and neuter mandatory on a second or subsequent?

That's a good question.

That's why I had to divide it into two motions.

I don't we don't want to strike that language that a forced spay and neuter occurs on a second or subsequent.

That's a good point.

So okay.

So I would amend my motion to say to actually add that at the beginning of section 9.44190 and leave the other section as is, but strike out that sentence, the two sentences that I mentioned so that we don't alter that section.

Did you want to read it?

You can read it, yeah.

Oh boy, okay.

Um so the recommendation is the recommendation.

The beginning of nine point four four point nine oh, this is language that's not there yet, would read as in order to reduce the likelihood that dogs allowed to be at large shall breed unwanted animals, any dog impa sh breed unwanted animals, any dog impounded for being at large, shall pay all fees, including uh shall pay all shelter fees incurred, including redemption, boarding, and license fees, or shall be spayed or neutered at the redeeming owner's expense prior to a second or subsequent redemption.

Then the next paragraph is in order to reduce the likelihood that dogs allow to be at large shall breed unwanted animals, any dog impounded for being at large, which previously has been redeemed from the animal care services center after impoundment for being at large shall be spayed or neutered at the redeeming owner's expense prior to a second or subsequent redemption.

So I just added that new paragraph and then left that paragraph but struck the last sentence.

That makes sense.

Okay, just a second.

Yeah, I think it's simple, like saying something like uh any animal uh any dog impounded for the first impound and then say any sec any any second or subsequent impound, the animal shall be altered.

Yeah, I mean just something that straightforward, because it gets too calm because we're playing with language that's gonna I'm happy to amend that again.

Any dog impounded, can we just be clear with the motion?

So your the motion is the recommendation.

And then when you're making the motion, basically what you're doing is capturing your recommendations and then you're gonna pass the motion to take it to P.

Okay.

Yeah, right.

Just so we're clear.

Because we're getting really in all the way.

Yeah.

So at that point that we really make a recommendation of what we want it to be, and then city attorney and PPE can make it pretty in the code.

Right.

The motion is to amend the ordinance ultimately.

That's what yes.

The motion is to amend the ordinance to um require that on first redemption, a the redeemer must pay all of the uh the shelter fees incurred, including the redemption fee, boarding fee, and licensing fees, or shall be uh or shall have to spay a neuter at their expense.

At their expense.

Yes, you can't waive the need of fees on the first and then on the second impounding.

Yep, and I feel like nonprofits and others will step in and pay those fees, and it's money and revenue that the city needs with the sixty-six million dollar deficit.

And then on second impound, they would stay as is, correct?

Mandatory spay neuter.

And one thing that we can also consider, slash Front street can consider is what you charge for that spay or neuter, can is more of a permissive of what you know you could charge twenty five dollars for a spay neuter or make it, you know, affordable for people versus actual costs once you put in fa salaries, etcetera, etcetera.

So but again that whole having some skin in the game and some cost to uh redeeming your animal okay so I'm gonna ask along these lines that Mr.

Bodagon prepare something in writing, type it up exactly, send it to everyone, and but we can vote on it because I think we understand it, but so we have it so the motion is my recommendation.

The recommendation is to amend the ordinance with a written um follow-up to be forthcoming, yeah.

I don't know, the the motion is to is a recommendation to amend the ordinance to capture the the will of the commission the will of commission, but to re it require on first redemption that individuals either have to pay all the fees um or spay and neuter at their expense.

Correct.

How it actually gets written in the code is and also to eliminate the discretionary waiver, right?

And to eliminate discretionary waiver, then on a second or second impound, it is mandatory that spay and neuter occur and how the fees are worked out is still so there's that three pieces.

Okay, I'll I'll work on that.

Okay, so and uh uh well is your question clarification here on your speaker list or okay, so the current motion is to make a recommendation to the PPE committee to amend the current ordinance on first redemption that individuals have to pay all fees, including redemption, boarding, licensing, um, or pay for spay and neuter at their cost, and eliminate the discretionary waiver for uh the shelter manager, the last sentence in that 9.44.190 section, second paragraphs.

Um, and also maintain that second impound uh spay and neuter is mandatory, and there is no extenuating circumstances.

But do you want to give the extenuating circumstances for too young, too old, too ill?

I don't know, I'm asking.

So, may I react to that?

Yeah, the problem is with that.

About reading section A before, we don't know really if that applies, like it's a fair inference, but I I can't say that that's exactly what it's meant to be tied to.

So I I would leave that alone.

Yeah, I wasn't saying that.

I don't want to make that assumption, you know.

Wondering if we wanted to let them have.

But we don't know that that's like I think we're making an inference, but because the section follows after and not before, yeah, yeah.

So that is the current motion on the floor.

Is there a second?

A second.

Sorry, it'd be read back one more time.

Cecilia with City Clerk's office.

So since you made the motion, would you like to amend to what I think she captured what I was trying to go to?

Summarized his motion.

Perfect, and then you already second okay, clear.

City attorney, did you have any input?

I just wanted to get clarification because um I forget one of the commissioners over on this side of the day is had suggested and it sounded like you were willing to kind of sketch this out and writing it, bring it back to the commission, but that then it would have to come back to the commission for all you to approve it before it goes.

So would you like that extra step in the process?

Is that part of the motion?

Are you suggesting it go with this motion straight to P and D.

Thanks for asking for clarification.

I think given this is a recommendation that's gonna be interpreted by the legal team.

I think the summation that she's provided now with A, B, and C is enough, and I trust that legal counsel will do what's right by the ordinance.

Just as long as everyone else is.

I say it again.

A recommendation to amend the ordinance that requires on first redemption, an individual pay all fees including incurred, including redemption boarding, and licensing, or have their annuals spayed or neutered at their expense.

By the shelter.

Okay.

And eliminate the statement of discretionary waiver by the shelter manager on uh on the span neuter.

Um, as well as can uh continuing the uh stipulation that on second impound spay and neuter is mandatory.

Second and further, second and beyond.

Well, if we yeah, second and beyond, although if it's on the second, they shouldn't have a beyond the third, hopefully, but hopefully.

Hopefully.

Council.

I will suggest we keep that in there because there is an appeal process.

I'm bringing it right in that.

So it is possible that second or subsequent is granted, and that animal does come back a third time.

So a second or subsequent impound.

Very good point.

That makes sense.

Alright, so second or subsequent impound.

Um it becomes mandatory.

As stated already in the ordinance, as stated in the ordinance.

Is that clear to all?

All right.

Yes, but we also have a motion on the table.

I didn't want to interrupt since you guys are still discussing.

So if if we're I think we're ready to vote, and then we can add time.

Yeah.

So all in favor of the current motion on the floor.

I any opposed.

Any abstentions?

All right.

Uh since our time technically ends in two minutes, I'd like to propose we add, uh, we will say that it's a maximum one hour, although hopefully not needing that much to this meeting.

I don't know.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

All in favor?

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

Any abstentions?

All right, thank you very much.

All right.

Still have some out hands speaking to groups.

Commissioner Asquith, is there anything further on this?

Commissioner Barragon?

Anything further?

What happened?

You're still on the speaker list.

I'm clearing it.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Uh Commissioner, okay, very good.

Yes.

Yeah.

Okay, we're moving on to item three, which is conducting a poll to determine the priority of discussion items for the animal well-being commission.

Um, so everybody should have a questionnaire in front of you.

It was passed out uh prior to the start of the meeting.

Uh, listed on here is just the topic from uh the follow-up log.

Uh we had discussed previously.

The follow-up log for those who are new, um, are I items that we would that the commission has asked for in previous meetings to be agendized at some point for discussion.

Um and it uh there have been various ways of which things end up on the agenda moving forward.

Um, but manager Hinderman and I had discussed that uh so that everybody has some say in what it is to do a poll so that and asking everybody to rank one to eleven, these being the topics, everything is pulled directly in order from the follow-up log on here.

If it's not on here, it's because it's either been resolved or it was just a uh information request, like asking for the audit to come.

So I that one is not necessarily on here.

But um, so I would ask that everybody right now uh put everything number one being your top priority, number eleven being your uh least uh lowest priority item for discussion.

We will tabulate them uh because of the Brown Act, everything has to be uh seen uh clear for the public, and we'll tabulate it right now so to be able to prioritize what's to go on future agendas for upcoming meetings, and when you have completed that, if you can pass those down so that uh, Hinderman has so kindly clarification question about okay, yes, sorry, yeah, yes, oh so what I was curious about, I I just wasn't sure when it says policy procedure creation change changes, is that the SOPs or is that?

Yes.

If you look at on the um follow-up log, there it's referred to as policy and procedure.

Uh there were two actually two different entries on there.

One is about uh commissioners that asked to create them, and other one is about the commissioners requesting that the vendor bring them forward.

I just combined it into one, um, but yes, that's about the SOPs.

Okay, and then that we could have involvement.

I or I guess that that would be my thing.

My other thing is the new shelter steps.

What can you clarify what that what that means for too is that right?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Yeah, it's it's on the log, but it's about the steps.

My apologies.

For capital campaign and all that it would be involved in uh and uh working towards a new shelter shelter.

Okay, let's get a bit better.

I think that's a good question.

That's got a new shelter.

Correct.

No, that's about uh it's on the follow-up log, uh the creation of a new shelter or the fundraising for a new shelter.

Oh, yeah.

It that's because some things like it's in red, it says it's been resolved.

Um, correct.

I think we call them like board dogs.

Sorry, I'm in a second.

Where would that be?

Uh that one was not.

I'm sorry, and I handed everybody my copy, so I um the log.

But um, it wasn't necessarily a discussion item, which is like a full discussion item.

It was, I believe that's one refers to that it'll be coming out in an email about for the rescue list.

So it wasn't an agenda discussion item, which is why it didn't go on here.

Well, it was just numbers.

I was thinking we were going to talk about how how the process works.

Yeah.

How animals are identified, how do we how do you work with partners?

Sorry.

You're like, get out of there.

Get out of the way, didn't say yes.

Really?

Yeah.

While we're on the list of our priorities, can someone tell me where my four dogs is?

Oh, it went to D P and E, then it got to the convention, and I didn't.

Oh, the layers.

I would hope that that's in the manager's report.

Okay.

Creation change.

I'm sorry.

I thought it was the only one.

No, I'm just going to go.

So they want it to happen.

We couldn't suspect.

They want to just go.

Maybe not.

It goes to dark.

Wait, are we just moving we're moving over the report?

They're gonna come back to us.

Next meeting.

Yeah, yeah.

Oh, okay.

That's the night.

Yeah.

Oh.

Yeah, it's like literally.

Yeah.

I'm just texting.

I had mentioned it to him.

Like a few weeks ago.

I think it was in the right.

He might have to go in.

Sorry, I was like, oh my god.

But I'm happy to do that.

But he has his logic was the don't mind.

That is so funny.

Yeah.

He's in he's in hell.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah.

Well, if you want my number.

Let's give it to me because I would have been happily given us the same.

I know we didn't.

But you need to continue.

There's a great one.

Yeah.

Actually, captured it.

I'll have to check it out.

What's your number of all the time?

Sure, we're taking a text.

I know.

I changed it.

Oh, that's one of the things that we can do.

I'm sure I'll just learn to um check this around.

I'm sorry.

Item 15 at all.

Dog adoption increased efforts to increase the adoptions.

I don't know where that would have fallen.

So that one's a we we've already sent that to PP and D.

No, this is item number fifteen, increasing dog adoptions.

The ad hoc work that was done last year and strategies around that putting diamond energy on that.

I realize I just voted without putting that one in because it I'm sorry.

Yeah.

It's item fifteen on the on the log.

No, the um follow flock.

Oh, sorry.

So it's like the reverse.

Right.

Yeah.

This is not set in stone as far as, but it's a it's a polling of the commissioners to have an idea of what the priorities are as far as future discussions and gender items.

So, yes.

But she just said the highest total.

So the the highest number is the least important.

Okay, got it.

The lowest number is the most important.

Okay, cool.

So number topic number one, euthanasia numbers.

Number one.

If I'm not mistaken, it's the next lowest.

So let's see.

Oh, I think that was last.

Okay.

This is not pretend to be an Excel expert.

Okay, so three February.

Commissioner Morris point it out.

I missed large dog ad hoc discussion for increasing adoptions.

Um, on the log without a priority at this point, I mean, but certainly we can actually even like fold that into like something else.

We could make it five point five.

Did I miss to do a vote between two or three?

But part of the thing is we also have to consider some of this is like the availability of individuals like policy.

We're going to have to get to the point we have the vendors and such.

So while this is our suggested priority, but this is not, of course, set in stone.

Um because uh, you know, as we move forward, I don't know if you need to keep these or anything for city purposes, but um, yeah, this is our our projected list of uh for recommendations on how to prioritize our future agenda items so that we have them for uh suggestion for uh Manager Hinderman and I uh staff putting together future agendas.

I don't believe, but maybe do we need to have a vote on this?

I mean, it says on there.

I guess it does, huh?

Do we require a vote on this?

We need clarification, please.

It's agendizes pass a motion.

You could pass motion that this is the suggested order for the follow-up log.

And hopefully it'll move forward as suggested.

Follow-up log items.

So actually, looking at it, um, I realize so our follow-up log, which usually falls into our consent calendar.

Uh, if we want to discuss the items on there or make any changes, was not in the consent calendar, so it is here, so we do need a motion to accept our follow-up log as it currently stands.

Didn't we do that?

No, we didn't do that.

So I make a motion to accept the follow-up log as currently in the packet.

Is there any discussion on the current status of the follow-up log?

And our voted on recommendation for priorities.

Anyone opposed?

Any abstentions?

Alright, very good.

So we are accepting our follow up log.

And our uh thank you everybody for voting.

So we have uh recommendations on priorities of for our future meetings uh moving forward.

So that brings us to our animal care services monthly manager report.

For the record, we had no public comment for item three.

Thank you so much.

And thank you, Manager Hinderman, for the use of your computer.

Do you need the clicker for your slides?

Oh yeah, I just have one single click.

All right.

Well, just to uh review stats here.

Um we had oh wait, this is how I do it.

There we go.

So, for uh dog intake, we had 466 dogs, 468 cats.

Uh kitten season is is in full swing for sure.

Um total outcomes 716.

Let's see.

81 cat adoptions, 255 dog adoptions, 37 dogs sent to rescue, 21 cats sent to rescue.

14, or sorry, no, that's that's reversed.

Uh dark blues cats.

So 30 37 cats sent to rescue, 21 dogs sent to rescue, 14 cats return to owner, 131 dogs return to owner, 106 uh cat euthanasia, 42 dog euthanasias.

Um live release rate for dogs, 91%, live release rate for cats 75%, overall 83%.

All right, and uh hobby story of the month.

Um this is uh actually I'm not sure which one is our dog because they look so similar.

That's kind of the story.

Um but um one of these dogs is bear uh dog that we had at the shelter that went out on our doggy day out program.

Um this family saw him out and realized wow, that's like the doppelganger of our dog.

And uh so these just decided you had to have a twin brother.

So he got um adopted from that program.

They are now our best friends.

So that's a great story, um other updates for I forget.

Uh yes, the um the ordinance um is on its way to PMPE committee, so um actually have a meeting tomorrow to get that uh uh staff report finalized.

So um hopefully the one in June.

I I'm not sure, but I can keep you posted on that, but Stephanie's definitely still still moving.

Um for our uh we're in the final stages of um the contract negotiations for the policies and procedures vendor.

I think last time I told you I ran a staff survey.

So we kind of went back and forth on the vendors seeing what we could do within our 75,000 dollar budget.

Met extensively with the management team, had meetings with them to get kind of their feedback on hey, here's what you really need us for, and here's what you could do on your own.

So we've identified about 24 of our highest priority policies and procedures.

They're also the biggest.

For the new commission members, in case you're not aware, we're having some interim improvements done in between now, and then we one day get to a new shelter.

There were some issues identified with our kennels that impact staff safety and um and other factors.

One of the biggest ones is a concrete curb that when you step out of the kennel, it's really easy to catch your foot.

We've had people trip and multiple other ergonomic issues and things that aren't great for animal um safety either.

So we did one kennel, it's gonna be done tomorrow.

We you may have seen we did a um uh social media push to get dogs out for like we have our pups and pjs program, which is an extension of doggy day out where people can take a shelter dog home for a short-term foster, basically.

So we had a great response on that.

We're able to get the entire building emptied, which that was a good trial for the real thing.

Um the real deal is gonna be, you know, each building could take two to four weeks, is the estimate I heard from the contractor.

We have been really successful with these short-term emergency foster events, so that's probably the route that we're gonna take.

Um we did also set up um uh a decibel meter to see just how loud it was.

Um and uh I haven't seen the readings yet, but I heard it was quite loud, the concrete grinding in particular.

So I'm open to other ideas though.

Um hopefully we can send those dogs to foster and and hopefully those fosters are willing to hold on to them.

But you know, there's gonna be new dogs coming in, and it's gonna be really challenging.

I'm not sure any shelter has.

Well, I shelters have had to build new shelters and move to them.

So I guess that that might be even, but usually that shelter is done, and then they move all their dogs at once.

So this is a pretty unique problem.

So appreciate any uh creative solutions anyone has for you know housing these dogs while we do this.

Um, but we're gonna have it should be complete Thursday, and then we'll have uh two weeks to basically test it out, review it, make changes, approve the designs.

Um staff have had good input already.

You're also welcome to come by and take a look.

It is in the B building, formerly M building, and it's just one of the ones all the way down, it's the second from the right.

It's uh it's uh uh kennel seven.

So feel free to check it out.

Um let me know if you want to drop by, I can uh go out there with you.

So that's really exciting.

Um, what exactly are they the changes that they're making for in that are able to do in three days?

For the single kennel, yeah.

So they're doing an entire kennel all at once as opposed to basically when they do it for real, they're gonna they're gonna batch the removal of the concrete and they're gonna do the latches.

So uh the main things are removal of the concrete curb, which is now gonna leave a trench.

That's a new safety issue.

So then over that is gonna be a metal grate, which is what most shelters have.

Um, and then uh we are replacing the latches, which are you know complicated, they break all the time, they're really bad for ergonomics, they're not great for safety for a number of of reasons.

Um, and so we're doing a new latch.

We have looked at a few options there.

I'm pretty uh pretty optimistic about the one that's that's there, but that they the first one they tried, but we'll have the opportunity to try others if needed.

Um, and then we're also making some modifications to the pulley system.

So if you've ever been there when staff pull down the rope, well, we can't get rid of the shrieking noise uh with this project, but it's they're really heavy, and so you're pulling down, and staff and volunteers are doing this repetitive motion, you know, all morning long.

Um, and then there's a clip that's like really not ergonomic that's just, you know, um, so that's getting uh fixed as well.

So those are the uh those are the primary ones, yeah.

Thank you.

Sure.

Um, let's see.

It was brought up at the last uh commission meeting.

Um, you know, that uh it would be ideal for the shelter to take in cats that are um pregnant, visibly pregnant.

Um I have worked with the leadership team and gone ahead and opened that um intake category.

So and I anticipate, you know, throughout the year we kind of change our you know, the types of cats that were um intaking, basically trying to help the most vulnerable cats as many as we can within um you know the medical capacity and fosters that we have, but I think you know, that's uh that's a very sensible, just like as we're talking about, you know, multiple multiple impounds.

I think that's just a very sensible um category of cat to take in.

So we'll be moving forward with that.

Um, as far as staffing goes.

Um, oh, and then um bottle babies, we're still struggling with we're able to get some of the the kittens in our bottle baby homes that had gotten older, moved into regular foster homes that are willing to um, you know, they're willing to take those ones that are already eating on their own, which then freed up some bottle baby fosters.

Um not all fosters are willing to do that, because obviously, if you raise these kittens from when they're you know three days old, you love to see the them grow up and their their full outcomes, but um still in big need of that.

We're gonna do a big you know, this last week we had to do the big adoption campaign, um, but next week or the week after we're gonna do a big urgent um bottle baby push and an in-person class as well.

So I'll keep you all posted on that.

Anything you can do to get the word out about that would be much appreciated.

Um staffing, the animal care services manager recruitment uh still underway, selection is anticipated in June.

Uh, the shelter shelter operations manager position is vacant, and the recruitment will be launched soon.

The veteran veterinarian recruitment is still underway.

Um, as many of you know, our um our uh salary for vets is does not pay the highest, so we've always had some trouble recruiting, so it may take some time for that position.

And then multiple other positions are in various stages of the hiring process.

We have our dog foster and rescue coordinator uh position that we're moving to interviews on, animal care technicians and also an animal care technician supervisor and animal control officers, and we have a new animal control officer starting this month, which is exciting.

Uh, you may have seen the adoption event uh that we posted um online, used you know, very urgent messaging there, and it got uh four so far it has 470,000 views on Instagram and about 380,000 views on Facebook.

Some of those are gonna be combined because we should, you know, some of the people that follow us on one maybe see it on the other.

It's a lot of people, you know, we did get some good adoptions, but we are still, you know, we're still pretty full.

I was looking at um at our stats, and the day before the event we had 170 dogs in shelter, and the day after and and as of last night we had 159.

So that's kind of one of the things I'm mentioning.

About you know, we do these adoption events, we have to keep the animals on site, um, to spay and neuter.

So there's a you know, we can get animals adopted, but doesn't you know making space is is kind of a separate part of the process, and you know, spay neuter is a huge aspect of being able to get those kennels open and alleviate our space concerns.

And then I just wanted to share um some statistics from our vaccine clinic.

Um, oh, and then lastly, on the adoptions, uh, we're gonna be putting out a press release tomorrow as well to try to get some last traffic for this weekend for our adoption event.

Um I had uh our data guy kind of pull some statistics to kind of see if there's a story there, and um this year compared to last year, we've seen a um a 12% decrease in total dog adoptions from the month of April of last year to the month of April of this year.

That was with an adoption event in early April, and a 12 uh 12% decrease in adult aged large breed dog adoptions and a 15% decrease in puppy aged large pre-dog adoptions.

So I know large dog adoptions is on the list.

Um to keep you all apprised of that.

Uh, you might see that coming out on the media in the next few days.

And then uh for our vaccine clinics, I wanted to share.

You know, we've been doing these since 2022.

We are gonna do a little story on this, but um we've uh served over 10,000 pets at this point with vaccines and or microchips.

So that's uh 2,898 cats and 10,781 dogs for a total of 13,679 pets served at our uh vaccine clinics.

That's it.

All right, uh questions, Commissioner Asquith.

I think we should have that second time, I apologize.

Commissioner Morris.

One statistic that um I'm curious about and wonder about maybe adding to your report is what is the return of adopted dogs to our shelter?

So if we do a big adoption free event and we adopt out 200 animals, is is there a return when people come back and say this wasn't a match?

So that's curious to me.

Don't know if it's a good thing or not.

I wonder, and then the other thing is just I wonder like what is our return rate on adoptions.

Um, because you know people come in, we do the best we can to help them match, but it's often we're struggling, like we can't no one can bring a dog in to meet the dog.

You have to that's not allowed.

I mean, we just don't have space for it.

So I'm curious about some of those.

Not to ask you to answer this now, but return like I know we get a lot of dogs out in these big events, but yeah.

So uh are you looking at um, it is not your monthly statistics, just so you know.

Like uh for the April, uh 345 dogs were adopted, 32 came back.

Yeah, at the top, gray confiscation.

Owner adoption return.

Adoption return.

And I believe if I'm not mistaken, that only captures if they came back within the first 30 days.

I'm not sure.

It's it's tough because it's not necessarily those same, you know, when you're looking at number of dogs that were adopted or some more dogs that were turned, it's not necessarily the same group.

Um we allow returns up to 90 days, so it could, you know, it's a little bit difficult to.

I don't know where I heard it or read it or saw it or someone told me, but I I was I was under the impression if it was thrust 30, they ended up there.

If then it was anything longer, they may that number might end up in owner surrender if it was expensive the return date.

So we we have a 30-day return policy with full refund and then a 90 day generally.

So if it's within the 90 days um, uh yeah, I I'll have to check.

Um, I'm not sure of a it should be in returns.

Okay.

But uh, no, this is that would just be for April, so you know, just under 10%.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

That was my question.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Verga.

I was just wondering if you're using the Petco Adoption Center anymore.

Yes, we still have the center and uh we primarily use it for kitten adoptions.

Um, the past we've used it for puppy adoptions.

Um, I don't know exactly what it'll look like this year, um, but it does tend to be you know these months that we that we ramp up usage of that.

And I asked because I remember when it launched and what a big deal it was, and that it was number one in the United States for the largest adoptions of any pet co in the United States.

And so I'm just wondering, and it was a big deal, you adopted a lot of animals there.

If you need help in getting together a volunteer team, I know we talked about this before, and you said it was just a lot of work and it was hard to do, but maybe there's something that we can do as a commission to try to assist to get a team together to bring animals there.

Because I know off-site adopts adoption events often are very successful.

Um, you know, you just get in a different venues, so something to think about maybe if if that's something you would be interested in down the road.

And then I would just like to comment because I go to the shelter you know at least once a week and uh it's very sad to see those cat kennels empty when I know how many need to get in.

So I hope what you're saying today I appreciate that about pregnant cats but just cats in in general that you would consider allowing them in.

Yeah as far as the um uh off-site adoptions that's actually um you know would be kind of one of my goals is to create you know a volunteer run off site adoption because we get so many we get asked by so many um but it is it is a substantial you know workload to select and pack up and take animals out and for if we don't promote it um for large dogs we have um we don't have a lot of success uh if we promote if it's kittens and they're put on the website or puppies and they're put on the website people kind of find their way to those um with if they're at pet cokes we list them on the website there for large dogs adoptions which is obviously what we need the most um we've really struggled to see success there unless we're like saying hey free adoption event at you know we've done partnerships with made of Subaru for example and we send people there I would love to find some some venues I know we we've we've done a uh a few now with midtown farmers market which gets a lot of foot traffic um so I would love to find venues that um that uh you know have enough traffic to be able to to get these dogs adopted without necessarily needing shelter marketing because we could also use that to just get people in our own doors without having to do all the transport stuff but yeah very open to that I would love to have a volunteer team that could be and I thought I mentioned the Elk Lodge uh farmers market uh it's free to bring not for nonprofits to bring in animals and they're very interested in bringing in more animal related um like adoptions that kind of thing in fact kelly and I are talking about you know bringing our nonprofits there and adoptions and kits kittens and puppies and stuff so I I'm sure they'd be open to that.

Yeah I know Commissioner Treek or friend street pets your friend reached out to me uh what's her position with the storm team I was a head of the owner of the storm owner of the storm team and the president yeah yeah so invited us yeah invited us to some some games pretty good just a time check for everybody we only have 17 minutes max commissioner bagley just two questions when are you gonna tell us who the vendor is I mean last month it was that it was still under negotiation are you ready to tell us I still don't think we have a we don't have a signed contract yet so I'm gonna okay and I just wanted to let you know that the care fair is this weekend on Saturday it might affect what you're doing at the shelter just letting you know we're out of Bradshaw you know ton of vendors this time so it could pull a little some of your people I don't know if it will enough okay okay thanks that's it commissioner asquith I'm sorry just keep pushing my button I look okay or undone everything so touch it and I canceled all right uh no further comments and thank you very much for the uh the the report a lot of good work going on all right moving on uh and any public comments uh no we do not have any speakers for this item commissioner bagley just one thing this is the final comment I would like uh uh to work on a daily list daily inventory list which I've brought up before I'd like it on the follow-up blog and anyone who's interested in seeing what anything on the follow up log requests go into the next section this is only regarding that I said it final comment I thought you were on final no no no no we're not there we're just closing out manager report commissioner treat did you have something okay so moving on, uh request for follow-up log additions.

So daily list.

And if any commissioner wants to see what it looks like, daily list of daily inventory list.

Inventory list.

Thank you.

Just like Brad Shop.

Sorry.

Yeah.

Yeah.

No, it's okay.

It's a lot of stuff.

It's the disposition from the day before and the intake from the day before and the adoptions.

Well, that's part of disposition.

And I will say that I've adopted two dogs off that daily because I don't like to go and window shop at the shelter and get them all stressed out and loud and barking when you're walking through.

So I mean, I think there are people that feel that way.

And I'll just add that put yourself.

Commissioner Treat.

Yes, just rather.

Just real quickly.

Um one of my comments is is that I believe this is Commissioner Fuse's last meeting.

She's going off to college, leaving us all behind.

So I just wanted us to thank her collectively for spending the time and being part of the commission.

Yes, thank you.

Commissioner Benedict.

Yes, I uh would like to um I guess put on the follow-up log or make a motion to put on the follow-up log, get the subcommittee together to um to work on an ordinance for mandatory span neuter.

Okay.

Commissioner Asquith.

I'll just add on the daily list that while it does um also include dispositions, which will include the euthanasia from the day before, it also creates transparency and it helps people to see um you know what has happened and and the the position that the shelter is in.

Leadership can tell anybody who's asking the question, the why that's very important, and then helping the public to understand what the sit the position of the shelter is in.

It's another way to disseminate that information, but it's also a way to let people give people a heads up every morning at 6 a.m.

or whenever they send it out.

What's there comes straight into their inbox?

Super valuable.

Thank you.

Commissioner Hayes.

Um, just like comments.

Yes, it's uh Commissioner comments, ideas and suggestions.

Uh, just wanted to update on the final plea initiative.

I don't know if anyone saw the CBS news article.

Um that was put out.

Thank you to Ignore Fisher Barragon for commenting.

Um we the subcommittee or some members of the subcommittee met with some volunteers yesterday over Zoom.

Um it went well.

I think we need to just confirm some clarifying things with you know, realigning the intent and the purpose of it, and then um look forward to meeting with Ryan and other staff on Friday to further discuss implementation of that update.

Thank you.

Commissioner Morris.

I was curious, about adding maybe some stuff about foster on.

I don't know if that would go on the daily inventory list.

Uh for example, the comment about the cat kennels are empty, but I heard that 300 and something cats are in foster right now, so maybe helpful to know because that's a volume of responsibility that the shelter carries, and I think that should be seen and not forgotten if you see empty kennels, but there's foster animals.

Uh the other um topic is just to um with the new commissioners.

I'll try to send you the we a couple years ago.

Uh we had a vendor come in, an architect firm who did a whole assessment of the campus and did some outcomes, and so in terms of what was just on the survey about a new shelter that was one of the results of or the main result of that survey.

So I'll look to send that to you.

And similarly, that was part of the some of the improvements on the um kennels that Ryan was describing that came out of a process of working with volunteers, staff, and um consultants who voted on on what priority ideas they wanted taken care of in terms of safety at the shelter.

Okay, Commissioner Asquith.

I would like to still be included in the final plea working group.

Um, if I could be added to the list, and I would like to say that one of uh my neighbors uh went to a kitten adoption event for Front Street, and the good news is all the kiddies got adopted, but she was like they ran out of kittens, so anyway.

Bring more in the future.

Uh Commissioner Verga.

Um I would like to add to the follow-up log, um, because one of the things that came up talking to the volunteers the other day about final plea was that um there really aren't that many volunteers in the shelter anymore, and ways that we can increase volunteer and foster uh support, um, because I I do anything I I can to do that.

In fact, I'm I'm uh I just applied today to be a volunteer, and I would encourage all the commissioners to do that.

And I'm fostering cats that Friendship didn't get taken in, but I think that's a good idea.

And I guess I I would just say, Sheanna, one of the that my concerns about you being involved with the final plea subcommittee is you'd voted against it, though.

So I'm just curious why you would want to be involved with it now.

I voted against the final plea because the uh because of the item that was added to the um the motion um at the last minute, the graphic that was basically a representation coming from that committee when I was not I did not give I did not was not able to give any input to this, but this was presented as part of the presentation to the commission, and that was the part that um I was concerned about, and that's the reason I voted no.

I am very much for a final plea process, I'm very much for a comprehensive animal placement program.

I was not um I was that that's where my concern line.

And I and I will say that all commissioners should have the opportunity to participate constructively in in all projects so long as you're under core.

Yes, yes.

Yeah, that that was that was a uh across the board consensus that you had.

Um we've talked that through with Commissioner Verga about that graphic.

We didn't see it ahead of time either.

So um that's the that's sort of why I mentioned the realignment.

Um I'm so sorry for not forwarding the email.

So the meeting for Friday, uh Kathy and you will and Shannon, you will get that link for Friday.

Long as you stay in your quorum.

Yes, that is the original subcommittee.

Very good.

I'll fill you in on the volunteer conversation.

Uh Manager Hinderman.

Uh, clarification um for the daily inventory list.

Um, did you want that as a discussion item?

Yes, but I would really like to be able to forward to the commissioners what it looks like, and I've offered previously it comes you don't have to sign up.

I can just literally here's a question.

Do you want it as a discussion item or is it a request for staff if they're able to do it without having a agenda discussion item?

Would that be your preference?

And again, I don't know what your seven hacks that you're wearing if that's even an option, but well, where does the shelter stand on it?

Do you know what it looks like?

And are you are are you amenable to trying it out?

I mean, not even trying it.

I mean, it's if I may if I may, uh, this point of the agenda is not for back and forth discussions.

It's only for comments, ideas, and suggestions.

Brown Act prohibits extended discussion on any item not on the agenda.

I so clarification then for you.

Do you want this as an agenda item or is it a request of staff to create such a list if if at all possible?

Do you want it as an agenda item to have a full discussion about this as a or is this a just a request of shelter staff to create a daily list?

Or both?

Well, then I'll say both.

All right.

So if it is able to be created, otherwise, we will put it as an agenda item.

Uh Commissioner Barragon, and time check for all six yeah.

Yeah, just I I wasn't here when this the committee was formed.

Um last time.

Uh I'm not interested in joining the committee, but I am interested in any committee that's formed to rewrite the span new to ordinance.

So I don't know if it needs to be um first added to follow-up log, then an agenda to form a committee to tackle that, or if it just organically could be formed at another meeting question, I guess.

Can I chime in on that?

Yeah, it requires council approval for a commission to form a subcommittee.

I don't know what to do.

No, commissioner for ad hoc is required, not subcommittee.

Okay.

Okay, I judge.

I just want to clear, you keep using the word subcommittee.

Okay, so the code prohibits the creation of a subcommittee by commission without council approval.

Right.

Oh, so it's a working group.

We're just not using the operative term.

Okay, okay, got it.

All right.

I'm happy to help, however.

And then the second comment, just for full transparency, um, I totally respect all the work that the whole working group did on the final plea.

Um, and just wanted to acknowledge that I got an unsolicited phone call from CBS, and they wanted to talk about our um what's been happening, but primarily they had questions about um the first item on our last agenda about increasing the number of adoptable pets from three to four, and I addressed that question, and then he asked me if I had any other additional things I wanted to share.

And I said, Well, you also missed the final plea, and he asked me about that, and he said I didn't even know about it.

Thanks for bringing it to my attention, and that's how that happened.

So there it is.

Thank you.

Thanks.

And I want to thank Commissioner Barragon for taking that call because I got a similar phone call, but I was enjoying my mother's day and did not answer.

So uh Commissioner Phew.

Oh, that's me.

Am I on?

Am I on?

Um I too with the um final plea um want to remain on that, you know, as working groups.

I think everybody is gonna have an opinion, um, and they need to be entitled to that opinion.

There's some verbiage we thought would be cleaned up a little bit before it went to the P and P E committee, and that's kind of what what we were looking at, and that's why it's kind of like I'm not sure this and that is up.

So that's why we did that.

So that's what those working committees are.

You're gonna have different opinions, different views, and that's the beauty of it.

Yeah, I'll send an email out tonight to everybody clarifying what was talked about yesterday and how some people thought we were talking about different things.

We're talking about one thing, we're gonna clean up verbiage, and it's gonna be all good.

All right, and I would give one word of caution.

Please don't send an email to all the commissioners at the risk of everyone responds, and then you've accidentally.

The the five members, yeah, on record.

Don't worry.

We were we were well lectured on that from your staff, so email within the working group only.

Uh all right, that is the end of our list.

Uh we have no public in the audience, so I'm presuming we have no public comments.

That is correct.

All right, and with that, it takes us to the end of our agenda.

Thank you everyone for your participation, and the meeting is adjourned.