Pima County Animal Care Advisory Committee Approved 4-16-15 · The motion was made and seconded...

Pima County Animal Care Advisory Committee Minutes March 19, 2015 4000 N. Silverbell Road Tucson, Arizona 85745 1. Call to Order

Mr. Neuman called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm • Attendance Present: Nancy Emptage, Vice-Chair, Animal Welfare Coalition Pat Hubbard, Humane Society of Southern Arizona Pat Jacobs, Tucson Kennel Club Sophia Kaluzniacki, DVM, SPCA of AZ, Inc Helen Mendelsohn, Disabled Community Jack Neuman, Chair, PACC Volunteers Erin O'Donnell, DVM, Southern AZ Veterinary Medical Association Jane Schwerin, People for Animals in the Prevention of Cruelty and Neglect Gail Smith, MD, Board of Health Kim Janes, Pima Animal Care Center (PACC), Ex-Offico Absent: Derek Marshall, Public Education Angela Spencer, City of Tucson • Pledge of Allegiance

2. Adoption of the Minutes • Adoption of the January 15, 2015 Meeting Minutes The motion was made and seconded (Hubbard/Mendelsohn) that the January 15, 2015 meeting minutes be adopted as written. The motion carried (9-0). Dr. Kaluzniacki pointed out the minutes incorrectly refer to her being with the “ASPCA” instead of the “SPCA.” That will be corrected. • Adoption of the February 19, 2015 Meeting Minutes The motion was made and seconded (Hubbard/Smith) that the February 19, 2015 meeting minutes be adopted as written. The motion carried (9-0).

3. Animal Welfare and Dangerous Animal Cases for the Month of February and Recent Holds Snapshot Ms. Emptage referred to welfare case 4 wherein the owner had his dog taken away and was later observed walking through the adoption kennels. Ms. Emptage asked about how the “do not adopt list” works. PACC Live Release Manager Justin Gallick said any section can place someone on the list, but it requires a memo providing the reasoning or special requirements to be able to adopt. The do not adopt status is connected to a name, not an address. Dr. Smith referred to welfare case 9

Approved 4-16-15

Pima County Animal Care Advisory Committee Minutes March 19, 2015 of 6

wherein the Field Officer reported the owner said that rather than taking his dog to PACC he would take it to Mexico to be put down. Dr. Smith asked why the officer didn’t just take the dog after such a comment. Supervisor Tenkate discussed it was a judgment call by an officer with about a month’s experience on her own. In response to a question, Supervisor Tenkate said Field Officers have about eight to ten weeks of training in the field plus ride-alongs and PowerPoint training. There is a pick-up fee, but it can be waived and there was discussion on how it is waived. PACC Chief of Operations Kristin Barney added that staff would look at that process for possible improvement. There was a request for follow-up on this case and that it be added to next month’s agenda.

4. Call to the Audience There were no speakers from the audience.

5. Management Report Mr. Janes explained the first bullet under item 7 was amended on the amended agenda and the Committee was provided updated copies for discussion when that item comes up for consideration. He also pointed out the Committee was provided with a copy of a memorandum from Ms. Barney to Jan Lesher, Deputy County Administrator for Medical and Health Services, regarding items that were of concern to the Committee in the past. He added that the February Operational report shows an 83 percent year-to-date live release rate for PACC.

6. Old Business • County Administration response to the committee's request to add additional field officers and

shelter staff; and Jurisdiction IGA Discussion and County Obligation for Animal Care Services

Mr. Neuman referred to the County Administrator’s response to the Committee’s request for additional Field Officers included the need for buy-in from the municipalities, then referred to the March 11, 2015 letter to Interim Tucson City Manager Martha Durkin and asked if there has been any response from the letters to the jurisdictions. Mr. Janes said two entities responded, Sahuarita and Marana, and they requested the topic be discussed at the next jurisdictional discussion with the County Administrator on April 14. (At the April 16, 2015 meeting Mr. Janes corrected this statement, saying there were three entities which responded; the third was Oro Valley.) As an example of why extra officers are needed, Ms. Emptage spoke about a welfare case from November 2014 in which Tucson Police called PACC reference a dog that was bleeding from its feet. (At the April 16, 2015 meeting Ms. Emptage corrected this statement, saying the dog was bleeding from its mouth.) The animal reportedly also had cancer. The premises were inspected in November, but staff was unable to do a recheck until late January. The dog was turned in to PACC on February 23, 2015 to prevent there being a citation for failure to provide veterinary care. The owner wants the dog back, but has no money for veterinary care. There was a history of neglect going back to 2011. Ms. Emptage asserted the dog went a long time without veterinary care and should have been impounded back in November. Supervisor Tenkate said the case was reopened for the Field Officer to issue citations. Ms. Emptage recommended the court not allow the owner in this case to own animals.


• PACC Protocols for Treatment of Tick Fever and Valley Fever

Item was withdrawn from the agenda.

• Volunteer Policy and Partnership Agreement

Ms. Barney said there is a volunteer policy that all volunteers sign and the policy is in revision. Staff has taken suggestions from a few meetings ago into consideration in revising the policy more and wants to present the updated policy at the next Committee meeting. • Castaway Treasures Animal Sanctuary Ms. Schwerin said she drove by Castaway Treasures and could see the horses. She said several horses were emaciated and one has to stand on three legs because it cannot stand on its left front leg. She shared a brief video, on a mobile device, showing the horse extending out the leg. Dr. Smith asked about any recent actions related to Castaway Treasures and Mr. Janes distributed a letter from Dr. García, Health Department Director, to the Board of Supervisors. Ms. Schwerin called for PACC involvement, particularly regarding the aforementioned horse, and suggested the horse be moved to Jessica Gray’s Wild Hearts Rescue Ranch were veterinarians are available to assess and assist the animal. Dr. Kaluzniacki agreed the horse is in pain, but suggested a neutral assessment venue since Wild Hearts and Castaway Treasures seem to be in conflict. In response to a question, Mr. Janes said livestock is a state jurisdiction issue, adding that staffing does not allow for PACC to completely address pet issues, but said if given a copy of the video he would send it to the State Agriculture Department. He went on to point out the Committee could write a letter to entities such as the State Department of Agriculture and the Governor if they so desired. Mr. Janes also said he would send a copy of the video and the meeting recording to the Pima County Sheriff’s Department.

The motion was made and seconded (Smith/Kaluzniacki) that the Committee write and send a letter and the video to the State Department of Agriculture and the Governor. There was discussion on what course of action should be taken and how long different actions might take to get results. After discussion the motion carried (8-1, Mr. Jacobs opposed). Ms. Schwerin asked about actions taken since the last meeting; and Supervisor Tenkate said a 14 year old dog was euthanized. A motion was made and seconded (Jacobs/Schwerin) that PACC enforcement staff contact the Sheriff’s Department to ask if the Sheriff’s Department would accompany PACC staff and a neutral volunteer veterinarian to specifically see the aforementioned horse tomorrow or as soon as possible. Mr. Janes interjected that the horse is under veterinary care. The motion carried (5-0, with four abstaining from the vote). • Ways to Shorten Duration of Hold Time for Confiscation Cases Mr. Neuman asked if someone from legal could come explain why these cases are handled as they are. Mr. Janes and Ms. Barney provided input that this concern is still being researched and discussed with the attorneys. Issue is to remain as an Old Business agenda item.

Pima County Animal Care Advisory Committee Minutes March 19, 2015 of 6 7. New Business

• Proposed Ordinance to Amend Pima County Code 6.04.060 – Pound Fees to add a surrender for

pets from non-contracted jurisdictions and increase dog licensing fees

Mr. Janes said the ordinance change is intended to do two things. First in relation to discussions with local jurisdictions, should there come a time when some jurisdictions do not contract with PACC, how does PACC handle animals brought to PACC from other jurisdictions? Mr. Janes cited that the Humane Society of Southern Arizona has a fee structure for bringing in animals; and said the ordinance would establish a fee structure to help offset costs. He added that this is how Maricopa County Animal Care deals with animals from jurisdictions without an agreement with them. The second change is a one dollar per year increase in the licensing fee for five years, which, for example, would change a $15.00 license in 2015 to $20.00 in 2020. The ordinance would only apply for unincorporated Pima County. He said the fee increase equates to half a million dollars in revenue per 100,000 licenses. Discussion ensued. There was concern that fees would keep people from bringing in animals and that animals will suffer as a result. Ms. Emptage contended that it would be better for a litter of puppies to go through PACC and be altered than to be homed unaltered. Mr. Neuman asserted that numerous volunteers devote countless hours and donors give thousands of dollars every month because of, in support of, PACC’s current lifesaving protocols, and predicted the change of adding a drop-off fee would drastically cut those resources. In response to a question, Mr. Janes said PACC has no agreement with the Tohono O'odham Nation (TO) and provides no services except PACC will take in animals directly from Rangers from neighboring districts. Ms. Barney said PACC gets about 500 TO animals a year and they are some of the sickest. Mr. Jacobs felt the ordinance language does not specify who actually pays the fee. Mr. Janes requested the Committee make recommendation(s) on the proposed ordinance. The motion was made and seconded (Kaluzniacki/Smith) that the Committee supports the licensing fee increase as presented, but does not support a drop-off fee. The motion carried (8-0, with Ms. Schwerin abstaining). Discussion turned to the codes low income discount fee for an unaltered dog. The motion was made and seconded (Smith/Hubbard) that there be no low income discount licensing fee for unaltered dogs (remove it from the code). Mr. Jacobs said that when the unaltered fee was raised, it was said to be a motivation for owners to get their dogs altered, but he contended that the percentage of unaltered dogs now compared to prior to the fee change is not appreciably different. Ms. Hubbard said that when the unaltered fee jumped up the Humane Society experienced a rush of owners getting their dogs altered. Mr. Jacobs felt that was the short term impact, but over time the percentage of unaltered dogs hasn’t changed. The motion carried (8-1, with Mr. Jacobs opposed).

• Proposed Ordinance to Amend Pima County Code 6.04.100 – Advisory Committee… to Modify

Membership Composition

Mr. Janes requested the Committee make a recommendation on this proposed ordinance. The ordinance would, in the code, eliminate the Animal Defense League of Arizona (ADLA) position


from the Committee, as previously recommended by the Committee, and swap out the Foundation for Animals in Risk (FAIR) Committee seat for a seat filled by Pima Paws for Life. FAIR merged with Pima Paws for Life. Ms. Tamara Barrick was the FAIR representative on the Committee, but can no longer serve as such, since FAIR no longer exists. Pima Paws for Life has provided a letter (included in the Committee’s packet) expressing their desire to have the FAIR seat replaced with one filled from Pima Paws for Life, to be filled by Ms. Barrick. The motion was made and seconded (Hubbard/Smith) to support the proposed ordinance. The motion carried (9-0).

• Housing Animals at the Ajo Animal Care Facility

Mr. Neuman said that approximately a year ago some dogs were taken from PACC (Tucson) to the Ajo facility with the reasoning that small dogs get adopted sooner in Ajo. However, a couple of the moved dogs ended up staying in the Ajo facility for a long time and eventually volunteers brought them back to PACC (Tucson). Mr. Neuman said dogs are again being sent to Ajo and he asked why. Ms. Barney discussed PACC is trying to balance how to provide service to Ajo. Mr. Neuman passed out a list of Ajo facility animals; referred to a dog that stayed in Ajo for months; and contended that the dog would have been adopted out much sooner in Tucson. He also asserted that in the Ajo facility the dogs get less socialization and said the facility is open to the public only three days a week, two hours per day. Discussion included that in November two dogs were sent to Ajo and one was adopted fairly quickly, but another took months. Mr. Gallick said that more recently the trend has been to transfer dogs from Ajo to Tucson and he suggested establishing a time limit on how long a dog would be kept at the Ajo facility. Mr. Neuman also expressed concern about veterinarian care for the Ajo facility dogs. Mr. Gallick indicated veterinary care at the Ajo facility is provided pro bono through relationships with volunteer veterinarians, but concurred that the pets don’t get the same level of veterinary care they would receive at the Tucson facility. Dr. Smith suggested Ajo adoption events in the community versus just leaving dogs at the Ajo facility. • Committee’s Semiannual Report to Board of Supervisors

Mr. Neuman provided a draft report and asked if the Committee wanted to all sign such a report or if they wanted it just under his signature. There was general agreement to have it just with his signature.

• Humane Society’s Zip Code 85705 Dog Spay/Neuter and Vaccination Initiative Ms. Hubbard postponed this item to the next meeting.

8. Donations: A total of 1,271 individuals gave $25,267.26 in donations during the month of February. There was no discussion on this item.

9. Complaints and Commendations: There were two complaints and no commendations received by staff during February. There was no discussion on this item.

Pima County Animal Care Advisory Committee Minutes March 19, 2015 of 6 10. Call to the Audience

There were no speakers from the audience.

11. Announcements, Schedules and Proposed Agenda Items Mr. Janes pointed out the Adopt Love Adopt Local event sponsored by the Pima Alliance for Animal Welfare will be on April 11, 9:00 to 4:00. Ms. Hubbard said the Humane Society will be providing rattlesnake avoidance training beginning March 24th and continuing through the summer.

12. Next Meeting – April 16, 2015

There was no discussion on this item. 13. Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 8:00 pm

NOTICE

PUBLIC MEETING OF THE

PIMA COUNTY ANIMAL CARE ADVISORY COMMITTEE March 19, 2015 – 5:30 p.m.

Pima Animal Care Center

4000 N. Silverbell Road

Tucson, Arizona 85745

Admin Building

(520) 243-7729

Functions of the Committee

1. Serve in an advisory capacity to the Board, and to the Manager of the Pima Animal Care Center; and

2. Review and evaluate the operations of the Center to make recommendations in writing to the Board for the formulation of guidelines to assure that:

A. The Center's operations are conducted in the best interest of the public health and safety; and

B. The Center keeps pace with the most modern practices and procedures of animal care and welfare; and

3. Review complaints from the public concerning policies of the Center and make recommendations for resolution to the proper authority.

ADDENDUM

7. New Business

County Budget Control Measures

Copies of this agenda are available upon request at the Pima County Health Department, 3950 S. Country Club Road, by calling 243-7729 or at

www.pima.gov/animalcare. The Committee may discuss and take action on any item on the agenda. At the conclusion of an open call to the public

Committee members may only respond to criticism made; ask staff to review the matter raised; or ask to include the matter on a future agenda.

Should you require ADA accommodations, please contact the Pima County Health Department at 724-7729 five (5) days prior to the meeting.

http://www.pima.gov/animalcare

NOTICE

PUBLIC MEETING OF THE

PIMA COUNTY ANIMAL CARE ADVISORY COMMITTEE March 19, 2015 – 5:30 p.m.


4000 N Silverbell Road

Admin Building

(520) 724-7729

Functions of the Committee

1. Serve in an advisory capacity to the Board, and to the Manager of the Pima Animal Care Center; and

2. Review and evaluate the operations of the Center to make recommendations in writing to the Board for the formulation of guidelines to assure that:

A. The Center's operations are conducted in the best interest of the public health and safety; and

B. The Center keeps pace with the most modern practices and procedures of animal care and welfare; and

3. Review complaints from the public concerning policies of the Center and make recommendations for resolution to the proper authority.

AMENDED AGENDA

1. Call to Order

Roll Call

Establishment of Quorum and Pledge of Allegiance

2. Review and Adoption of Minutes:

Adoption of January 15, 2015 meeting minutes

Adoption of February 19, 2015 meeting minutes

3. Animal Welfare and Dangerous Animal Cases for the Month of February and Recent Holds Snapshot

Welfare Dangerous Dogs

A14-154739 A15-165954 A15-164275 A14-163282

A15-163387 A15-166165 A14-162205 A14-157399

A15-165129 A14-155481 A15-165775 A15-166099

A15-166027 A15-166650

4. Call to the Audience

5. Management Report

6. Old Business

County Administration response to the Committee's request to add additional field officer and shelter staff; and Jurisdiction

IGA Discussion and County Obligation for Animal Care Services. (Neuman/Janes)

PACC Protocols for Treatment of Tick Fever/Valley Fever (Jacobs/PACC Management Team)

Volunteer Policy and Partnership Agreement (PACC Management Team)

Castaway Treasures Animal Sanctuary (Schwerin/Emptage)

Ways to Shorten Duration of Hold Time for Confiscation Cases (Neuman)

7. New Business

Proposed Ordinance to Amend Pima County Code 6.04.060 – Pound Fees to add a surrender fee for pets from non

contracted jurisdictions and increase dog licensing fees (Neuman/Janes)

Proposed Ordinance to Amend Pima County Code 6.04.100 – Advisory Committee… to Modify Membership Composition

(Neuman/Janes)

Housing Animals at the Ajo Animal Care Facility (Neuman/PACC Management Team)

Committee’s Semiannual Report to Board of Supervisors (Neuman)

Humane Society’s Zip Code 85705 Dog Spay/Neuter and Vaccination Initiative (Hubbard)

8. Donations: A total of 1,271 individuals gave $25,267.26 in donations during the month of February.

9. Complaints and Commendations: There were two complaints (topics) and no commendations received by staff during February.


11. Announcements, Schedules and Proposed Agenda Items

12. Next Meeting – April 16, 2015

13. Adjournment

Copies of this agenda are available upon request at the Pima County Health Department, 3950 S. Country Club Road, by calling 243-7729 or at

www.pima.gov/animalcare. The Committee may discuss and take action on any item on the agenda. At the conclusion of an open call to the public

Committee members may only respond to criticism made; ask staff to review the matter raised; or ask to include the matter on a future agenda.

Should you require ADA accommodations, please contact the Pima County Health Department at 724-7729 five (5) days prior to the meeting.

AMENDED

http://www.pima.gov/animalcare

Pima County Animal Care Advisory Committee Minutes January 15, 2015 3950 S. Country Club Road Tucson, Arizona 85714 1. Call to Order

Mr. Neuman called the meeting to order at 5:35 pm • Attendance Present: Nancy Emptage, Vice-Chair, Animal Welfare Coalition Pat Hubbard, Humane Society of Southern Arizona Derek Marshall, Public Education Helen Mendelsohn, Disabled Community Jack Neuman, Chair, PACC Volunteers Jane Schwerin, People for Animals in the Prevention of Cruelty and Neglect Gail Smith, MD, Board of Health Kim Janes, Pima Animal Care Center (PACC), Ex-Offico Absent: Tamara Barrick, Foundation for Animals in Risk Pat Jacobs, Tucson Kennel Club Sophia Kaluzniacki, DVM, ASPCA of AZ, Inc Erin O'Donnell, DVM, Southern AZ Veterinary Medical Association Angela Spencer, City of Tucson • Pledge of Allegiance

2. Adoption of the Minutes • Adoption of the December 18, 2014 Meeting Minutes The motion was made and seconded (Mendelsohn/Hubbard) that the December 18, 2014 meeting minutes be adopted as written. The motion carried (7-0)

3. Call to the Audience There were four speakers from the audience, Justin Pope, Marcie Velen, Lea Ann Kelly and Kim Brandom. Mr. Pope referred to the second bullet of the Partnership Agreement provided in the packet and on the agenda, about making no inflammatory public statements about PACC, staff and programs, volunteers and PACC rescue partners. He questioned who all this was to apply to, individuals who sign the agreement, organizations, individuals associated with organizations; does it only apply to one’s professional life or does it also include personal life? Secondly he questioned what is inflammatory, and reported Webster’s defines it as causing anger, which he characterized as pretty broad. He suggested that saying animals are at risk of euthanasia or objecting to the Partnership Agreement could be perceived by some as inflammatory. Thirdly he asserted that the agreement is rather one-sided.

Draft

Pima County Animal Care Advisory Committee Minutes January 15, 2015 Page 2 of 7

Ms. Velen said she felt most of the Partnership Agreement bullet points apply to what is expected of partners and very few apply to what is expected from PACC. She called for working on a mutual agreement that included what rescue partners wanted and concurred with the comment about the agreement being one-sided. Ms. Kelly said she agreed with Ms. Velen’s comments then went on to say 501(c)(3)s are targeted and discriminated against in the agreement. Both 501(c)(3)s and non 501(c)(3)s pull from PACC and the agreement has special rules just for the 501(c)(3)s, but those rules should be enforced by the IRS not PACC. She continued that PACC wants access to adoption and sterilization records; and while she has no problem with sterilization records, she does have a problem with adoption records; feels that is an invasion of privacy and that PACC should trust the rescues to do their job to find good homes for rescued animals. She also said she had other issues that can’t be addressed at the meeting and provided a handout (included in the record). Ms. Brandom said she agreed the term inflammatory was too broad; the wording in the Partnership Agreement needs to be tightened up; and there needs to be clarification on who to bring complaints and disputes to. She went on to say there are fairly detailed reports on donations, but not on how those donations are spent, which she would like to see.

4. Management Report There was no discussion on this item.

5. Old Business • Volunteer Policy and Partnership Agreement

Dr. Smith said she didn’t understand why rescues wouldn’t want to share information; if someone gets an animal directly from PACC, then PACC knows where it went, so why is it a problem if it went out via a rescue? Ms. Mendelsohn pointed out that an individual could obtain several animals by going to different non-profits and each non-profit wouldn’t see the person is getting a high number of animals. Also the agencies wouldn’t know if PACC has record of the person being an animal abuser. Ms. Emptage pointed out that PACC is accountable for placement of the animals; the law requires PACC know where the animals go; and the law requires dogs be licensed, which would also give PACC the owner’s information, so it should not be an issue. Ms. Schwerin agreed that it was the law and added that the law requires PACC to verify a number of things about the organization, which the rescue organization must agree to in writing. Mr. Neuman also agreed with the legal obligations stated. Mr. Neuman expressed that some stipulations in the agreement seem to contradict first amendment rights, but said PACC has the right to sever relations with entities that sidetrack from PACC’s mission. He said he typically stays off Facebook, but has sometimes seen a thread of negative communication. Dr. Smith suggested rather than banning negative communication, provide a person or structure to address problems, adding that Facebook rants make people less likely to want to deal with PACC which makes overcrowding worse. Ms. Emptage said it comes down to the third bullet, being respectful, and added that negative communications get magnified and taint the public. She relayed there are negative perceptions of PACC that currently just aren’t true, adding that the Committee will listen and if people don’t want to come in person, then they can send them a letter.


Mr. Neuman said volunteer interaction with the Volunteer Coordinator has gone down and the volunteers see him less, but suggested more Volunteer Coordinator availability could be part of the solution. Ms. Mendelsohn suggested more than one person to go to. Mr. Neuman pointed out that at some point PACC management makes a decision on an issue and that decision stands. It was discussed that concerns voiced are part of the record and the Committee can act or advise as they see fit. Mr. Marshall said most PACC related Facebook posts are emotional responses to some recent event. He suggested such postings are cathartic for the volunteer and can lead to commiseration and eventually positive outcomes. Dr. Francisco García, Health Department Director, said the agreement is a starting point and part of the process is to get feedback as expressed. He said staff will work on the language. As a result of recent input, the Rescue Coordinator will be meeting with rescue organizations to improve communication. The partnership agreement is not intended to infringe on free speech rights, but rather to promote respectful communication as opposed to comments that border on an an attack on an individual or organization. Staff stressed that PACC could not do what it does without volunteers and other partners and that the agreement is an attempt to try to work together not a way to get rid of volunteers. Dr. García cited the Humane Society as an example of an organization using volunteers in a focused manner to provide exemplary service. • Criteria required for PACC to Respond and Investigate a Service/Welfare Issue Wherein an

Animal is in Distress

Jessica Gray, a volunteer with People for Animals in the Prevention of Cruelty and Neglect (PFA), spoke about two extreme cases of neglect. After she spoke she provided the document she read off of. The first case involved an unvaccinated, unlicensed pitbull mix named Chewy. The dog was originally injured on or around November 10th when it suffered a severed Achilles tendon and lacerated his leg to the bone. The owner took Chewy to Southern Arizona Vet Services and was referred to Ms. Emptage in her capacity as a counselor for PFA. Euthanasia was recommended. Instead the owner took Chewy home and provided no further medical care until he contacted Ms. Gray nearly a month later. The owner failed to get Chewy to two separate appointments, so Ms. Gray gave Chewy and his owner a ride to VCA Animal Medical Center. When chewy got it the truck there was an overwhelming odor of decomposition. At VCA the veterinarian had to soak the bandage off of Chewy’s leg. The owner made it clear he was homeless and jobless. Only euthanasia was offered. The owner began yelling and announced his intentions to further deprive Chewy of veterinary care. The veterinarian wrapped Chewy’s leg and changed her story from what was earlier discussed with Ms. Gray. Ms. Gray then called PACC. Animal Care Enforcement Operations Manager Jose Chavez spoke with the veterinarian and the owner was allowed to keep Chewy. Later in the week PACC staff responded to where the owner was living, PFA was contacted and Ms. Gray provided transportation to Valley Animal Hospital where the veterinarian offered amputation or euthanasia as the only reasonable options. PFA would not authorize amputation due to their policy against it and the owner’s track record of providing no aftercare. The owner intended to again leave with Chewy, so Ms. Gray again called PACC. Mr. Chavez said a private donor would pay for the amputation and there would be follow up to ensure Chewy would not suffer any further. Currently there is no record of further PACC or veterinarian contact; Chewy’s condition is unknown and the owner has not responded to attempts to contact him. The other case involved a mixed breed female dog which was reported to Ms. Gray by her owner, on December 23rd, to have been severely injured (broken shoulder and leg and likely internal injuries) in


March and that the owner has not provided any medical care. The owner continued that last week the dog was attacked by cattle and was screaming in pain, which Ms. Gray could hear in the background. Ms. Gray sent them to VCA and authorized only pain medication to relieve the animal’s suffering while the situation was investigated. She also made VCA aware she was contacting PACC. Ms. Gray notified Field Supervisor Konst of the animal’s medical situation and the owners various animal related violations. Mr. Konst spoke to the veterinarian who was consenting to allow the dog to go home until after Christmas, so that children wouldn’t lose their dog at Christmas. In light of the two aforementioned cases, Ms. Gray asked if efforts to be a no kill county were interfering with enforcement’s ability to seize and relieve the suffering of severely injured and neglected animals, or if it is simply not PACC’s goal to enforce the laws and ordinances as written? She said there have been numerous cases wherein PACC and law enforcement have demonstrated unwillingness to enforce animal welfare codes. She continued that numerous other agencies have adopted no kill models where no kill did not translate into being overcrowded and ineffective, nor force suffering into the field. She called for dialogue on the lack of enforcement and the ability of PACC field officers, especially supervisors, to override veterinarians in cases of previous neglect. She cited that the laws are clear and strong, just not enforced, and as a result animals are allowed to suffer tremendously. Ms. Hubbard said she believes there is a state law requiring veterinarians to report animal cruelty and there appears to be a problem with veterinarians. Ms. Gray strongly agreed and said there is a board of veterinary ethics and she is in the process of writing them on this topic. Ms. Emptage said the pitbull owner wanted PFA to pay for the amputation and when he was told PFA was only offering euthanasia he told Ms. Emptage she was wasting his time. Ms. Emptage said some veterinarians don’t want to make a stand and it’s hard for PACC to go against what a veterinarian says. Ms. Hubbard said there are some veterinarians who automatically call PACC when an owner takes an animal home against medical advice (AMA). Ms. Emptage added there have been instances when veterinarians give an animal pain medication and then don’t say or document an AMA because there is no suffering at that time, which sends the problem away and they avoid any controversy, but they know the owner doesn’t have money and the relief will only be temporary. PACC Field Supervisor Tenkate, in response to a question, said there are times when owners are allowed to relinquish an animal to PACC in lieu of citations, but depending on the severity of the violations citations can still be issued when an animal is relinquished. Sometimes the decision to issue citations comes after examinations by our veterinarian. Regarding Chewy, staff was shown a form regarding another vet clinic visit, but when the owner brought Chewy in the clinic refused to do anything due to lack of payment. Ms. Emptage contended that PACC should ask about owners’ ability to pay and in the case of Chewy should have known the owner could not pay since PFA was involved. Ms. Tenkate said procedurally field officers don’t question people about their financial situation. Ms. Gray also indicated she informed Mr. Chavez of Chewy’s owner’s lack of means to treat. Ms. Schwerin commented that veterinarians are often wrong and why not take action and get another veterinarian to testify? Mr. Janes commented that it is a balancing act and there are no absolutes. Mr. Neuman asked if PFA had contracts with the veterinary clinics involved in the aforementioned cases. Ms. Schwerin said her organization has “broken up” with VCA except for euthanasia. Mr. Neuman suggested a meeting be set up with enforcement and animal assistance agencies like PFA to work through how to best handle situations like those discussed. Dr. García was supportive of suggestion. In response to a question, Mr. Janes indicated that paying the bill isn’t the same as being the client / animal owner.


• County Administrations Response to Committee's Request to Add Additional Field Officers and

Shelter Staff Mr. Neuman said he was combining the discussion under this bullet with the New Business Jurisdiction IGA Discussion since they are closely related. He asked Deputy County Administrator for Medical and Health Services Jan Lesher to explain the current County and municipality dynamic which ties these issues together. Ms. Lesher provided the following information. The County is only legally obligated to provide animal care services in unincorporated Pima County; services within the municipalities are provided through intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) with the County. Additionally animal care spending has increased, including roughly $1.2 million a couple of years ago. PACC’s spending increases hit the cities and towns in the middle of a budget cycle, which is not something they like, and County Administration agrees that isn’t the way things should be done. Through the IGA the city of Tucson pays roughly $3 million for their portion of the services PACC provides. There has been ongoing dialogue between County and municipality management concerning animal care services and costs. Two guiding principles were established going into these discussions. First, the decision making authority regarding animal care services legally rests with the Board of Supervisors and cannot be taken away; and secondly, the County will not step back from the quality of care. In general the jurisdictions feel the County is spending too much on animal care. They have questioned why PACC deals with cats, since it’s not legally mandated, and have suggested a maximum animal retention of three days. The Board of Supervisors is the only legal body currently directly involved in animal care. Therefore they hear from constituents, but the local municipalities typically do not get input on animal related issues and don’t perceive animal care needs. The jurisdictions know the budget is tight and put people before pets. It has come to the point where the IGAs might not be renewed. However, the lack of an IGA, probably won’t keep PACC from getting animals from any given municipality. How do we handle that; turn away animals from non-IGA jurisdictions; charge a fee? Local animal advocacy entities are telling the County to spend more, while the cities and towns are saying cut PACC’s spending. The Committee’s request for more field officers was shared with the jurisdictions because the costs impact their budgets. How do we get the community engaged in letting the municipalities know what the animal care issues are and how important these issues are to them? For example, representatives from large jurisdictions have told Ms. Lesher that we don’t have feral cats. They don’t hear about the needs and issues, so the issues don’t shape their budgets. Mr. Neuman spoke about meeting with jurisdiction officials and pointed out that many of the PACC volunteers live in the various municipalities. He added that city managers and finance managers aren’t elected and would probably be less influenced by constituents. Dr. Smith suggested participating in city council meetings. The possibility of the Committee sending letters to city and town officials was also touched on. Ms. Lesher pointed out the recent drastic increase in charitable contributions to PACC and how much of this increase is tied to PACC’s improved service model. Organizations give in connection to policies and programs they agree with; and these funds offset costs, to include costs to the jurisdictions. A regression in service philosophy will result in these funds not being available. Mr. Neuman asserted that having to charge individuals or having to turn animals away will unravel all the progress made in recent years. He said he was composing a letter to the volunteers. The Committee discussed obtaining information, through staff, on the jurisdictions and their meetings, and then possibly holding another meeting to discuss actions once the information has been gathered.


Eventually, a motion was made and seconded (Emptage/Smith) that the Committee hold a meeting prior to the next regular meeting to address how the Committee wants to approach animal care communications with the local municipalities. The motion carried (7-0).

6. New Business • Jurisdiction IGA Discussion and County Obligation for Animal Care Services Inside Cities and

Towns

See discussion at previous bullet.

7. Animal Welfare and Dangerous Animal Cases for the Month of December and Recent Holds Snapshot Ms. Schwerin referred to welfare case two, in which there were four dogs left outside in the rain all day. Documentation stated that proof of shelter was provided; however, she questioned the validity of the proof of shelter. She said people like this owner do not reform and the owner should not be allowed to redeem the animals. Ms. Schwerin referred to welfare case three as a terrible case involving multiple violations. A motion was made and seconded (Emptage/Marshall) that the Committee recommend to the court that it ban the owner in this case from animal ownership. The motion carried (7-0). Ms. Emptage referred to welfare case five in which three dogs were on tie outs and the report states the owner gave reason to believe he would place the dogs back on tie outs. She said it is likely the dogs went back on tie outs. However, as reported by Mr. Janes, a subsequent recheck found the dogs were not on tie outs. Ms. Schwerin referred to welfare case four in which a dog was on a tie out tangled around a tree and the owner received several citations. She asked why the owner was allowed to keep the dog. Mr. Janes said staff could revisit the case to see why the officer made that decision. Ms. Emptage referred to welfare case six, another dog on a tie out, which was also on a tie out when rechecked. She asked where the dog is now. Mr. Janes said that was a good question and indicated Supervisor Tenkate was taking notes. Ms. Emptage referred to welfare case ten as a horrible case. The case included three dogs on tie outs and one emaciated boxer which had to be euthanized. The owner signed a release of ownership for all the dogs. The Committee discussed wanted severe action taken against the owner. Supervisor Tenkate added that the owner is now on PACC’s no adoption list; there was no history of violations at his address and the maximum legal ban on animal ownership is three years. The motion was made and seconded (Emptage/Smith) that the County Attorney and Judge in this case be made aware of a recommendation from the Committee for the owner to receive the maximum fines and animal ownership ban. The motion carried (7-0). During discussion Ms. Schwerin referred to a proposed ordinance she has been working on. She said the current cruelty and neglect law calls for fines from $100 to $2,500, up to six months in jail, and up to three years of probation. Her proposed addition included a violator not being allowed to own or harbor animals for up to 5 years, or longer, or ever.


Ms. Schwerin requested staff provide her with the court dates associated with welfare cases two, three, four, five and ten. To make better use of staff time at the meetings, a motion was made and seconded (Hubbard/Smith) to move the Welfare Cases and Dangerous Dogs agenda items sooner in the agenda going forward. The motion carried (6-0).

8. Donations: A total of 1,821 individuals gave $114,509.68 in donations during the month of December. Mr. Neuman characterized December’s donations total as unprecedented. Ms. Hubbard asked if these donations are from individuals or organizations, to which Mr. Janes replied they are all monetary donations from all sources, to include $29,000 from PetSmart Charities. He said there have been a number of special appeals generated by PACC’s Fund Development Manager, who is doing a fantastic job. Mr. Janes added that most donation funds go for spay/neuter and medical expenses, although some funds are specifically designated where they are to be used and that is how those dollars are allocated.

9. Complaints and Commendations: There were three complaints and one commendation received by staff during December. There was no discussion on the documentation provided. Ms. Emptage wanted to commend staff for the on-line licensing feature which she said was very easy to use. Mr. Neuman complemented the Adoption Coordinator for being out on the floor assisting and for turning down a would-be adopter who was of concern.


There were no speakers at this call to the audience.

11. Announcements, Schedules and Proposed Agenda Items Ms. Hubbard said the Humane Society has a grant to provide free spay/neuter and vaccinations for puppies in zip code 85705. Mr. Janes said the Pima Alliance for Animal Welfare (PAAW) will have a meeting tomorrow morning at 8:00 in the exact same room the Committee meeting was in.. Ms. Emptage said she has been in discussions regarding service and emotional therapy dogs and if anyone has any input they can send it to her.

12. Next Meeting – February 19, 2015

Mr. Neuman established that the next meeting will be held at the Abrams building. 13. Adjournment


Pima County Animal Care Advisory Committee Minutes February 19, 2015 4000 N. Silverbell Road Tucson, Arizona 85745 1. Call to Order

Mr. Neuman called the meeting to order at 5:32 pm • Attendance Present: Nancy Emptage, Vice-Chair, Animal Welfare Coalition (Late: 5:56) Pat Hubbard, Humane Society of Southern Arizona (Late: 5:39) Pat Jacobs, Tucson Kennel Club Sophia Kaluzniacki, DVM, SPCA of AZ, Inc (Left early: 6:38) Derek Marshall, Public Education Jack Neuman, Chair, PACC Volunteers Erin O'Donnell, DVM, Southern AZ Veterinary Medical Association Jane Schwerin, People for Animals in the Prevention of Cruelty and Neglect Gail Smith, MD, Board of Health Kim Janes, Pima Animal Care Center (PACC), Ex-Offico Absent: Tamara Barrick, Foundation for Animals in Risk Helen Mendelsohn, Disabled Community Angela Spencer, City of Tucson • Pledge of Allegiance

2. Adoption of the Minutes • Adoption of the January 15, 2015 Meeting Minutes The motion was made and seconded (Jacobs/Kaluzniacki) that the January 15, 2015 meeting minutes be adopted as written Regarding 5. Old Business, Criteria required for PACC to Respond and Investigate a Service/Welfare Issue Wherein an Animal is in Distress, Ms. Schwerin contended the minutes should say Ms. Gray authorized only euthanasia regarding the second animal welfare case Ms. Gray spoke about. (Instead the dog was taken home for Christmas.) Mr. Neuman requested the printed paper which Ms. Gray read from be added to the record. Mr. Janes said the paper and recording will be reviewed for possible modification of the minutes; and any updates can be brought back for consideration at the next meeting. The motion was amended to table approval of the minutes and have Ms. Gray’s aforementioned paper provided for review at the next meeting. The motion carried (6-1) with Ms. Hubbard abstaining. • Adoption of the February 4, 2015 Meeting Minutes

Draft

Pima County Animal Care Advisory Committee Minutes February 19, 2015 Page 2 of 5

The motion was made and seconded (Smith/Hubbard) that the February 4, 2015 meeting minutes be adopted as written. The motion carried (7-0) with Mr. Jacobs abstaining. Dr. Kaluzniacki pointed out that she is with “SPCA” not “ASPCA” as the minutes have been reflecting. That will be corrected.

3. Animal Welfare and Dangerous Animal Cases for the Month of January and Recent Holds Snapshot Ms. Schwerin made the general statement that animals in these welfare cases would be better off if they were taken away from their owners and not returned. Regarding the holds snapshot Ms. Schwerin asked about the dog Sativa. Mr. Janes said the judge ruled that the owner is to forfeit the dog, but the owner has until March 3rd to appeal the decision.

4. Call to the Audience There were no speakers from the audience.

5. Management Report Mr. Janes reported the City of Tucson contacted him about placing a new representative on the Committee and Mr. Janes requested they submit the request in writing, which hasn’t occurred yet. He said there have been monthly meetings on the approved PACC bond project, including a meeting that day. Public meetings are being set up; architect bids are due in by February 24; and it is anticipated the architectural firm will be selected by April 1, with the contract manager selection to follow. There was discussion on the importance of involving entities with animal care experience and allowing for proper input in the process. In response to a question Mr. Janes reported that a County inmate walked away from PACC and was subsequently taken back into custody within a few short days. The incident caused no interruption in receiving the crews. Mr. Neuman added that he has heard very positive feedback from the volunteers regarding the County inmates; and said the inmates have addressed the bulk of the items in the July 19, 2014 motion for resolution (first bullet under old business).

6. Old Business • Update on July 19, 2014 motion for resolution for PACC to remedy issues relating to the care and

welfare of pets at PACC – Operations

Mr. Neuman withdrew this item since his concerns have been addressed to his satisfaction.

• Possible Ordinance Related to the Sale of Tie Outs

Ms. Emptage said she wants something passed that required local retailers selling tie-outs to post that tie-outs are not legal in the specific jurisdictions wherein they are not legal to use. She also wants the code to specify a significant fine for those who do not comply. She cited that people purchase tie-outs not knowing that they are illegal to use in most local jurisdictions.


The motion was made and seconded (Emptage/Schwerin) that the Committee support to the Board of Supervisors an ordinance to codify the requirement to post signage stating that tie-outs are illegal, where tie-outs are sold. Ms. Hubbard said tie-outs are an abomination, but questioned how the code would be enforced and how many hours will be spent to enforce the code versus doing other important animal related duties. Ms. Emptage suggested a number of volunteers would be willing to check stores for the required signage. In response to a question, Mr. Janes said the requirement to post would only apply to jurisdictions which codify such an ordinance, so if one or more of the local cities doesn’t pass an ordinance, then such requirements wouldn’t apply to them. He also cautioned that the code would need to specify what constitutes a tie-out; does it include a clothes line and twine? Discussion turned to using public service announcements or an educational campaign to educate the public on the problems associated with tie-outs and that they are illegal. Reference was made to a past school spay/neuter campaign wherein an I-Pad was offered as a prize. Mr. Marshall volunteered to take the lead on a school audio/visual, graphic design campaign related to tie-outs. In light of the school campaign direction, the aforementioned motion was withdrawn. Mr. Janes suggested the County’s Communication Office be collaborated with for the campaign. • County Administration response to the committee's request to add additional field officers and

shelter staff; and Jurisdiction IGA Discussion and County Obligation for Animal Care Services

Mr. Neuman summarized that the Committee had sent a letter to County Administrator Huckelberry requesting additional field officers, to which Mr. Huckelberry replied that the request couldn’t be granted without funding and buy-in from the municipalities. Mr. Janes and others have been meeting with the municipalities and the Committee discussed also meeting with the municipalities; however, the County Attorney’s Office and County Administration is currently contemplating the appropriateness of such meetings. Ms. Schwerin referred to the Enforcement Calls by Jurisdiction – January 2015 handout in the packet and pointed out that the overwhelming majority of calls for service where from the City of Tucson or the County, with comparably few from other jurisdictions. She questioned why we need their contributions. Others contended that although the numbers are smaller, services are provided, costs are incurred and their contributions are needed. Ms. Hubbard added that the County’s direction of saving more lives costs money and we need all the municipalities on board.

• General Criteria required for PACC to respond and investigate a service/welfare issue wherein an

animal is in distress, with Enforcement concerns from Jessica Gray as representative of People for Animals

Jessica Gray, a volunteer with People for Animals in the Prevention of Cruelty and Neglect (PFA), read the attached statement regarding animal conditions at Castaway Treasures (Animal Shelter), located on Mars Road, and provided a picture of the horse referred to in her statement. She reported that Livestock Control checked out the horse in the picture and said it is acceptable to allow the horse to suffer in its current condition because it is old. She stated that in 2011 there was a court order prohibiting Castaway Treasures from taking in more animals, but they have taken in more. Ms. Gray added that she has sent numerous certified letters to various officials and entities about this situation; and that the owners of Castaway Treasures have taken legal action against her keeping her at a distance from the property.


There was discussion on PACC’s involvement related to the dogs, including PACC requiring certain dogs receive medical care and requiring one dog to be euthanized. Mr. Janes said PACC can provide the case file. He added he has been in communication with the Sheriff’s Department Detective and she is investigating the case the same as she would any other case. Ms. Schwerin contended that PACC legally can and should take action on behalf of the aforementioned horse citing that the code refers to “animals” not just pets. Mr. Janes replied that PACC is not staffed or resourced for livestock, while the State Agriculture Department is; and that it is the County’s policy to not cross over to deal with livestock or wildlife. He added that he will forward the concerns presented up his chain-of command. A number of Committee members commented that the Castaway Treasures situation is disturbing. Mr. Jacobs made a motion that Ms. Gray’s written statement be forwarded to the applicable State Agriculture enforcement officer and that PACC’s management provide the Committee with the case file(s) related to the Castaway Treasures animals PACC has been involved with, as soon as possible (seconded by Dr. Kaluzniacki). The motion carried (9-0).

• PACC Protocols for Treatment of Tick Fever and Valley Fever

Mr. Janes indicated that PACC treats for 30 days; if the animal is then adoptable, then they will proceed, but if not then it is placed on the rescue list. Mr. Jacobs expressed concern that the speaker from the audience who brought up the matter be contacted and be made aware of PACC’s official treatment position.

• Animal Defense League of AZ Membership Request

Mr. Janes reminded the Committee that they had passed a motion to request the Board of Supervisors eliminate the Animal Defense League of Arizona’s (ADLA) long vacant seat from the Committee in code. An ordinance to accomplish this has not yet been sent to the Board of Supervisors and Mr. Janes was recently contacted by an ADLA contact who said they are interested in filling the position, although no name was provided. He left it to the will of the Committee on how to proceed. The motion was made and seconded (Emptage/Marshall) that the original motion to eliminate the seat remain as the Committee’s intent concerning the ADLA seat. The motion carried (6-1, Hubbard voted against) with Mr. Jacobs and Ms. Schwerin abstaining.

7. New Business There was no new business on the agenda

8. Donations: A total of 1,444 individuals gave $43,567.76 in donations during the month of January. Mr. Janes pointed out these monthly donations are only monetary donations directly to PACC and only a portion of the roughly $160,000 in total donations through partnerships in January. He added that PACC is receiving approximately $30,000 worth of donated dog food, some of which will be shared with partners so that it will be consumed before expiration.

9. Complaints and Commendations: There were four complaints and two commendations received by staff during January.

Pima County Animal Care Advisory Committee Minutes February 19, 2015 Page 5 of 5 10. Call to the Audience

There were no speakers from the audience.

11. Announcements, Schedules and Proposed Agenda Items Ms. Emptage said she recently watched a Pima Alliance for Animal Welfare (PAAW) sponsored presentation on service and therapy animals. She found the presentation very interesting and informative and recommended the presentation be afforded to staff and volunteers. Mr. Janes said he would forward her suggestion to the Chief of Operations.

12. Next Meeting – March 19, 2015

Mr. Neuman established that the next meeting will be held at PACC. 13. Adjournment



Animals on Hold Report

Animals listed are currently listed as

being on hold without an outcome date.

They are grouped by the type of hold

kennel_no

ENFORCEMENHOLD TYPE 21Number on Hold

A12-102940

K14-175847 A247678 DOG SATIVA ROTTWEILER/11/6/14 CONFISCATE FIELD OWN AGGRESSIVE

Kennel Comment:D050

chip 494D4C3F3D

DO NOT RELEASE!

Bond hold.1926 SAFE LOCK

RActivity:A12-102940

Page 1 of 63/12/15 14:51

kennel_no

02/17/20152-17-15

Per the county attorney:

We finally obtained a copy of the justice court order that although it was signed by the judge on January

12th, it wasn't scanned into the system until January 23rd and was never sent to Mr. Westfall. Because

Mr. Westfall never received a copy of the order, there was no way for him to know about or calculate the

appeal deadline, so in an abundance of caution, our office is mailing a copy of the scanned order to Mr .

Westfall today and are calendaring an additional 14 days for him to appeal the order. So, please don't take

any further action regarding Sativa until we get back to you.

1914

JCHAVEZ 2/17/15 16:09ENFORCEMEN

12/17/201412-16-14 OSC hearing scheduled for 1-2-15. 1914


11/17/201411/16/14 The dog owner signed and received a copy of the Bond form and has until 11/26/14 7pm to post

the bond amount of $675.00. (for an Order to Show Cause Hearing)

If the bond amount is not paid by 7pm on 11/26/14 the Rottweiler A247678 named Sativa will be forfeited to

PACC. 1911

DTENKATE 11/17/14 13:35

11/06/201411-6-14, Do not release Sativa. Owner must meet with enforcement.1926

EKLEIN 11/6/14 20:29ENFORCEMEN

11/10/2014If Mr Westfall comes to redeem Sativa

(1)serve the premise inspection ordering a wellness exam be done on Patches by a licensed veterinarian

to ensure she was not injured on November 3rd,2014. PACC will not be taking possession of her unless it

is ordered by a judge because pacc has not received reports of patches displaying any aggression.

(2)Serve the Bond on Sativa.And explain to Mr Westfall that he MUST post all of the bond amount to PACC

within 10 days. Not 10 business days but 10 straight days as pacc is open 7 days a week.

(3) issue the following citations regarding Sativa:70757.A,B,C,D,E DD at large,Preventing inspection of a

DD,Failure To comply ,No Insurance ,No license and 70758 A,B,C no rabies vaccination,DD attack (

attempt on the animals) ,DD attack ( Attempt on a human)

(4) issue the following citations regarding Patches : 70759 A,B,C Leash Law, no License and No Rabies

vaccination.

All of the documents are in a folder in my investigator box.

Once Mr Westfall has been served and the citations have been issued a copy of everything needs to be

sent to Paula Perrera and Barbara Burstein. They are aware that Sativa is currently at PACC. 1926

11-10-14 The dog owner Mr. Westfall called the center to inquire about his dog being released . I advised

him of the above pending actions and advised him he needed to come into PACC and meet with an

investigator or supervisor either today before 7pm or on wednesday 11-12-14 before 7pm. 1914


01/08/20151-8-15

The OSC hearing was held the Judge took it under advisement and a decision is pending. 1914


03/05/20153-5-15

Accordin to PCAO the owner has put in an appeal to superior court the dog will be on hold until further

notice. 1914


02/06/20152-6-15

The Court has ordered the animal forfeited to PACC on January 12. Now the owner has the right file an

appeal to the Superior Courts. The owner has until 2-9-15 to file, until then the animal will be on hold. 1914


12/11/201412-4-14 The bond was paid on 11-26-14. The dog will be held further until the Order to Show Cause

hearing is set up and conducted. 1914


A14-161432

K15-184237 A512706 DOG AMER BULLDOG/

Page 2 of 63/12/15 14:52

kennel_no

3/5/15 CONFISCATE FIELD OWN NORMAL

Kennel Comment:U017

unable to scan RActivity:A14-161432

K15-184239 A512707 DOG GERM SHEPHERD/3/5/15 CONFISCATE FIELD OWN NORMAL

Kennel Comment:DR013

no chip RActivity:A14-161432

K15-184240 A512709 DOG GERM SHEPHERD/MIX3/5/15 CONFISCATE FIELD OWN NORMAL

















unable to scan RActivity:A14-161432

A15-163903

K15-180864 A507556 DOG CUTIE GERM SHEPHERD/1/16/15 CONFISCATE FIELD OWN NORMAL

Kennel Comment:D061

Bond PostedR

Activity:A15-163903

02/24/20152-24-15

We had the Arvizu OSC hearing this morning and the judge ruled that the dog Cutie is to be forfeited to

PACC. The Arvizus received their copy of the court 's Minute Entry ruling before leaving the courtroom.

The Minute Entry Order informs them about their right to appeal the decision of the Justice Court judge by

filing a notice of appeal with the court within 14 calendar days. That means that they need to file a notice

of appeal at the Justice Court on or before March 10.

If the Arvizus do that, as they claimed they would, I will let you know about the next steps. But for right

now, Cutie must be kept at PACC. 1914


02/06/20152-6-15

Per the county attorney we need to hold the animals for a longer period of time possibly additional 10days

to allow the defense attorney to photograph them. 1914


A15-165081

K15-184128 A423426 DOG MIA AM PIT BULL TER/3/4/15 STRAY FIELD NORMAL

Kennel Comment:D198

**3C see memo. 1942 RActivity:A15-165081

Page 3 of 63/12/15 14:52

kennel_no

03/04/20153-4-15 If owner redeems issue 3PC on 1942 behalf for leash law on both dogs "Mia" and "Bella". 1942

MECKELBA 3/4/15 12:09

K15-184130 A494404 DOG BELLA PIT BULL/3/4/15 STRAY FIELD AGGRESSIVE

Kennel Comment:D216

**3C see memo. 1942

caution-fearful/aggressive

P012043 Heather Rodriguez reserved this dog


03/04/20153-4-15 If owner redeems issue 3PC on 1942 behalf for leash law on both dogs "Mia" and "Bella". 1942

MECKELBA 3/4/15 12:54

A15-165833

K15-182864 A495380 DOG RED PIT BULL/MIX2/13/15 STRAY FIELD NORMAL

Kennel Comment:D051

DD RActivity:A15-165833

03/09/20153-9-15

The dogs will contine being on hold until contact is made with the owner to address the order of

compliance. If the owner is not contacted and the order of compliance is not completed by the deadline

3-13-15 the animal will become the property of PACC and will be removed from the enoforcement hold .

1914


02/13/20152-13-15.impounded as stray at large. dogs were previously declared dangerous by 1901. 1926

DHINTE 2/13/15 18:24ENFORCEMEN

K15-182865 A507176 DOG EBONY PIT BULL/2/13/15 STRAY FIELD NORMAL

Kennel Comment:D051

DD RActivity:A15-165833

02/13/20152-13-15, impounded as stray at large.previously declared dangerous by 1901. 1926

DHINTE 2/13/15 18:30ENFORCEMEN

03/05/20153-5-15

The dogs will contine being on hold until contact is made with the owner to address the order of

compliance and dangerous dog at large violation. 1914


A15-167244

K15-184303 A512768 DOG AYVA SIBERIAN HUSKY/3/5/15 CONFISCATE BITE NORMAL

Kennel Comment:D044

DD HOLD NO CHIP

3c3c3c3c3cc3c3c3c3c33ccc3c3c3c . IF OWNER FAILS TO REDEEM,

INTERESTED PARTY IS ANGELICA BUDISH, #520-780-2797


K15-184458 A512966 DOG YOSHI PIT BULL/3/7/15 CONFISCATE FIELD OWN NORMAL

Kennel Comment:D072

DD HOLD OWNER P363765 RActivity:A15-167244

A15-167305

K15-184361 A512857 DOG CHIHUAHUA SH/3/6/15 QUARANTINE BITE NORMAL

Kennel Comment:D074

3c 3c 3c 3c RActivity:A15-167305

Page 4 of 63/12/15 14:52

kennel_no

A15-167402

K15-184548 A513018 DOG PIT BULL/MIX3/8/15 CONFISCATE FIELD OWN NORMAL

Kennel Comment:D251

didnt bite, unable to scan

**dog very timid and may not walk on leash**

3C3C3C3C


A15-167611

K15-184728 A513256 DOG CHOW CHOW/3/11/15 CONFISCATE FIELD OWN INJ MINOR

Kennel Comment:D060

no bite/unable to scan field

3c3c3c33c


K15-184735 A513263 DOG CHOW CHOW/3/11/15 CONFISCATE FIELD OWN INJ MINOR

Kennel Comment:U007

no bite/unable to scan field

3c3c3c33c


A15-167612

K15-184723 A513241 DOG GERM SHEPHERD/MIX3/11/15 STRAY FIELD LACTATING

Kennel Comment:U010

no chip

3c3c3c3cR

Activity:A15-167612

03/11/20153-11-15 Upon arrival to a priority call regarding 3 dogs who had chased a woman,I observed a tan Pit bull

mix dog roaming in front of 5585 S.Santa Clara. I then observed the blk/wht Pit bull and th red/wht Shep

mix and the tan Pit bull mix coming out of the alley behind their house.

I observed the Shep mix was a female and has had a litter previously unkown time frame. I had my treats

with me and after some time I got them all to eatout of my hand. I was able to leash the female and almost

had the blk/wht Pit but it got loose. Eventually I put the female in truck and tried catching the males but no

luck. Theneighbors stated the dogs are trying to attack people and are deficating on properties.

Issues cites for leash law on all 3 dogs for 1115 hrs 3-11-15 per 1925. Keep in traffic until contact and or

dogs are impounded. 1925

KWALTON 3/11/15 12:34ENFORCEMEN

Page 5 of 63/12/15 14:52

PIMA ANIMAL CARE CENTER ADVISORY COMMITTEE

FEBRUARY 2015 OPERATIONAL REPORT

TUCSON COUNTY TOTAL TUCSON COUNTY TOTAL TUCSON COUNTY TOTAL DELTA %+/-SHELTER OPERATIONS

ALL ANIMALS HANDLEDDOGS 593 531 1,124 5,342 4,849 10,191 5,362 4,665 10,027CATS 292 126 418 2,520 1,673 4,193 3,157 2,082 5,239

OTHERS 15 32 47 203 383 586 210 338 548TOTAL ANIMALS HANDLED 900 689 1,589 8,065 6,905 14,970 8,729 7,085 15,814 -844 -5%

Live Animals Handled 733 578 1,311 6,727 5,893 12,620 7,703 6,295 13,998 -1378 -10%IMPOUNDED ANIMALSADOPTED

DOGS 185 188 373 1,970 1,879 3,849 1,815 1,541 3,356CATS 138 39 177 1,254 910 2,164 789 619 1,408

OTHER 1 0 1 7 13 20 28 14 42TOTAL ADOPTED 324 227 551 3,231 2,802 6,033 2,632 2,174 4,806 1227 26%

RETURNED TO OWNERDOGS 94 81 175 717 521 1,238 554 435 989CATS 7 3 10 32 42 74 35 43 78

OTHER 0 0 0 13 7 20 5 11 16TOTAL RETURNED 101 84 185 762 570 1,332 594 489 1,083 249 23%

RESCUEDDOGS 57 80 137 714 828 1,542 841 978 1,819CATS 94 43 137 538 392 930 755 508 1,263

OTHER 0 0 0 11 33 44 49 34 83TOTAL RESCUED 151 123 274 1,263 1,253 2,516 1,645 1,520 3,165 -649 -21%

*TOTAL LIVE RELEASES 576 434 1,010 5,256 4,625 9,881 4,871 4,183 9,054 827 9%**TOTAL LIVE RELEASE RATE 87% 87% 87% 83% 84% 83% 76%

EUTHANIZEDDOGS 108 76 184 1,216 1,048 2,264 1,328 1,213 2,541CATS 19 13 32 260 196 456 1,110 692 1,802

OTHER 4 7 11 46 63 109 28 58 86TOTAL EUTHANIZED 131 96 227 1,522 1,307 2,829 2466 1963 4429 -1600 -36%

(-)Owner Requsted Euthanasia 48 33 81 417 397 814 1495Adjusted Total Euthanasia 83 63 146 1,105 910 2,015 2,934

***EUTHANASIA RATE 13% 13% 13% 17% 16% 17% 24%

OTHER 180 114 294 1,698 1,265 2,963 1,190 907 2,097 866 41%

ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONSWelfare Responses 218 146 364 1654 849 2503 1585 741 2326 177 8%

ENFORCEMENT CALLS FOR SERVICE 1,387 1,053 2,440 11,438 7,320 18,758 11,713 7,593 19,306 -548 -3%

LICENSING OPERATIONS

ALTERED 3,451 4,964 8,415 26,087 34,135 60,222 27,392 35,106 62,498UNALTERED 222 230 452 1,553 1,907 3,460 1,894 2,626 4,520

OTHER 48 85 133 509 722 1,231 551 750 1,301TOTAL SOLD 3,721 5,279 9,000 28,149 36,764 64,913 29,837 38,482 68,319 -3,406 -5%

YEAR TO YEARTHIS MONTH THIS YEAR TO DATE LAST YEAR TO DATE

*Total Live Releases(TLR)=Total Adopted+Total Returned+Total Rescued**Live Release Rate=TLR/(TLR+Adjusted Total Euthanasia)***Euthanasia Rate=(Adjusted Total Euthanasia)/(TLR+Adjusted Total Euthanasia)

of 2 3/13/2015

ORDINANCE 2015- ________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA, RELATING TO ANIMALS; AMENDING PIMA COUNTY CODE TITLE 6, CHAPTER 6.04 SECTION 6.04.060 TO ADD AN ANIMAL DROP OFF FEE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA, FINDS THAT:

1. It is in the best interest of the County to modify Pima County Code Section 6.04.060 to charge a drop off fee for animals turned into the Center to offset the costs of caring for, rehabilitating and rehoming pets turned in to the Pima Animal Care Center.

THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA: SECTION 1: Pima County Code Title 6, Chapter 6.04, Section 6.04.060 is amended to read as follows:

CHAPTER 6.04

ANIMAL CONTROL REGULATIONS

. . . 6.04.060 - Pound fees.

The Pima Animal Care Center may charge pound fees pursuant to the following schedule:

. . .

OO. Pima Animal Care Center may waive any or all pound fees. Animal surrender with

appointment, thirty five dollars.

PP. Animal surrender without appointment, seventy dollars.

QQ. Pima Animal Care Center may waive any or all pound fees.

SECTION 2. This Ordinance is effective 30 days after the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors, Pima County, Arizona, this ____________day of________, 2015.

of 2 3/13/2015

______________________________ _______________ Chair, Board of Supervisors Date

ATTEST: ____________________________________ Clerk of the Board APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________________ Deputy County Attorney

97004 / 00247710 / v 1Z:\PACC\_Shared Data\PACCAC 2\Agendas\2015\PCACAC 3-19-15\6 04 100 strikethru 2015 15-3-3.doc Page 1 of 2 3/13/2015

ORDINANCE 2015- ________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA, RELATING TO ANIMALS; AMENDING PIMA COUNTY CODE TITLE 6, CHAPTER 6.04 SECTION 6.04.100 TO REMOVE THE ANIMAL DEFENSE LEAGUE OF ARIZONA POSITION FROM THE PIMA COUNTY ANIMAL CARE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND REPLACE THE FOUNDATION FOR ANIMALS IN RISK WITH PIMA PAWS FOR LIFE ON THE COMMITTEE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA, FINDS THAT:

1. It is in the best interest of the County to amend Pima County Code Section 6.04.100 to eliminate the Animal Defense League of Arizona (ADLA) position on the Pima County Animal Care Advisory Committee. ADLA has not nominated a representative since the resignation on November 5, 2012 of its previous representative.

2. It is in the best interest of the County to replace Foundation for Animals in Risk with Pima Paws For Life (FAIR). FAIR merged with Pima Paws For Life adopting the new name.

THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA: SECTION 1: Pima County Code Title 6, Chapter 6.04, Section 6.04.100(B) is amended to read as follows:

CHAPTER 6.04


6.04.100 - Advisory committee—Established—Powers and duties.

. . .

B. The membership of this committee shall consist of a representative from the

Southern Arizona Veterinary Medical Association, the Society for the Prevention

of Cruelty to Animals of Arizona, Inc., the Humane Society of Southern Arizona,

the Tucson Kennel Club, the Animal Welfare Coalition, a public educator, a

member of the Pima County board of health, the Animal Defense League, the

Foundation for Animals in Risk Pima Paws for Life, the People for Animals in

the Prevention of Cruelty and Neglect, Inc., a resident of Pima County who

97004 / 00247710 / v 1Z:\PACC\_Shared Data\PACCAC 2\Agendas\2015\PCACAC 3-19-15\6 04 100 strikethru 2015 15-3-3.doc Page 2 of 2 3/13/2015

needs and uses the assistance of a certified service dog as representative of

the disabled community, the city of Tucson, and a registered volunteer with the

Pima Animal Care Center. The manager of the center shall serve as an ex officio

member.

SECTION 2. This Ordinance is effective 30 days after the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors, Pima County, Arizona, this ____________day of________, 2015.


ATTEST: ____________________________________ Clerk of the Board APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________________ Deputy County Attorney

Donation Activity Period: 2/1/15 To: 2/28/15 Donation Code Amount DONATION $10.00 DONATION ADOP $200.00 DONATION GEN $9,930.76 DONATION OUTR $38.00 DONATION S/N $13,065.50 DONATION SAMS $2,023.00 Grand Total $25,267.26

Monday, March 02, 2015 Page 1 of 1

Donation Activity Period: 7/1/14 To: 2/28/15 Donation Code Amount DONATION $140.00 DONATION ADOP $6,163.86 DONATION GEN $221,159.04 DONATION OUTR $3,901.00 DONATION S/N $108,639.96 DONATION SAMS $50,608.50 DONATION SHEL 0974 $20,585.00 Grand Total $411,197.36

Monday, March 02, 2015 Page 1 of 1

Complaints and Commendations for the Month of February 2015 2-6-15 E-mail from Department of Environmental Quality Complaint Reported dead dog Course/Action Picked up same day

Various Complaints Complaint Conditions at Castaway Treasures Course/Action PACC visit / Under investigation by Sheriff’s Dept

1

Michael Schlueter

From: Kim JanesSent: Monday, March 09, 2015 10:55 AMTo: Michael SchlueterSubject: FW: Complaint Referral PC 1502-027

Kim

From: Tina Gonzales Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 2:17 PM To: Robert Hendrix; Jose Chavez Cc: Kim Janes Subject: RE: Complaint Referral PC 1502-027 Thanks guys! Have a good weekend.

Tina Gonzales PDEQ Complaint Coordinator (520) 724-7432 www.pima.gov

From: Robert Hendrix Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 2:13 PM To: Jose Chavez; Tina Gonzales Cc: Kim Janes Subject: RE: Complaint Referral PC 1502-027 A15‐165248 picked up today at 11:41

From: Jose Chavez Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 1:45 PM To: Tina Gonzales Cc: Robert Hendrix; Kim Janes Subject: RE: Complaint Referral PC 1502-027 Hello Tina, We will take care of it.

2

Robert, please set a DOA call to have this dog pick up making it the driver’s first call tomorrow morning. Thanks, Jose

From: Tina Gonzales Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 1:37 PM To: Kim Janes Cc: Jose Chavez; Robert Hendrix Subject: Complaint Referral PC 1502-027

Tina Gonzales PDEQ Complaint Coordinator (520) 724-7432 www.pima.gov

of 3

3/18/2015

ORDINANCE 2015- ________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA, RELATING TO ANIMALS; AMENDING PIMA COUNTY CODE TITLE 6, CHAPTER 6.04 SECTION 6.04.060 TO ADD AN ANIMAL SURRENDER FEE FOR ANIMALS FROM A JURISDICTION WITHOUT A CURRENT ANIMAL SHELTER AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY AND TO ADD A ONE DOLLAR ANNUAL DOG LICENSING FEE INCREASE FOR FIVE YEARS FOR EACH TYPE OF DOG LICENSE FEE

THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA, FINDS THAT:

1. It is in the best interest of the County to modify Pima County Code Section 6.04.060 to charge a drop off fee for animals turned into the Center from jurisdictions that do not have a current full cost recovery based animal sheltering agreement with the County to offset the costs of caring for, rehabilitating and rehoming pets turned in to the Pima Animal Care Center.

2. It is in the best interest of the County to increase dog licensing fees by one dollar per year for five years to offset cost increases associated with operating the licensing program, sheltering unwanted and homeless pets and providing animal welfare and rabies control enforcement service to the community.

THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA: SECTION 1: Pima County Code Title 6, Chapter 6.04, Section 6.04.060 is amended to read as follows:

CHAPTER 6.04


. . .

6.04.060 - Pound fees.

The Pima Animal Care Center may charge pound fees pursuant to the following

schedule:

. . .

OO. Pima Animal Care Center may waive any or all pound fees. Animal surrendered

from jurisdictions that do not have a current full cost recovery based animal sheltering

service agreement with the county:

1. With appointment, thirty five dollars.

of 3

3/18/2015

2. Without appointment, seventy dollars.

QQ. Pima Animal Care Center may waive any or all pound fees.

. . .

6.04.070 - Dog vaccinating, licensing and permitting procedure and fees within county limits.

. . .

B. The licensing fees for dogs three months of age or over which are kept within the

boundaries of the county for at least thirty consecutive days are as follows:

1. Regular, unaltered dog—sixty dollars.

2. Regular, altered dog—fifteen dollars.

3. Dogs declared dangerous or vicious—one hundred dollars.

4. Senior/disabled citizen owner, unaltered dog (limit four discounted dog

licenses per household)—seventeen dollars.

5. Senior/disabled citizen owner, altered dog (limit four discounted dog licenses

per household)—ten dollars.

6. Dogs ten years of age or older—fifteen dollars.

7. A dog owner with a household income below the federal poverty level is

eligible for a one time twenty-seven dollar unaltered dog licensing fee per dog.

8. A dog owner with a household income below the federal poverty level is eligible

for an eight dollar dog licensing fee per altered dog (limit four discounted dog

licenses per household).

9. A guide dog belonging to a blind person who is a resident within Pima County, or

a dog certified, in writing, as being trained to the standards of a service animal by a

of 3

3/18/2015

nationally recognized service dog training agency belonging to a resident within

Pima County shall be licensed pursuant to this article without payment of a fee.

10.Processing/Postage fee per license, one dollar.

11. Effective July 1, 2015, fees authorized in subparagraphs B.1. through B.8. of

this sub section will increase on July 1 of each year by one dollar per year for five

years.

. . .

SECTION 2. This Ordinance is effective 30 days after the date of adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors, Pima County, Arizona, this ____________day of________, 2015.


ATTEST:

____________________________________ Clerk of the Board APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________________ Deputy County Attorney

Pima County Animal Care Advisory Committee Approved 4-16-15 · The motion was made and seconded...

Documents

Transcript of Pima County Animal Care Advisory Committee Approved 4-16-15 · The motion was made and seconded...