WRITTEN
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
CITY COUNCIL
MEETING
OCTOBER 15, 2024
CITY COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 15, 2024 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENT MICHAEL PHIPPS-RUSSELL BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 - COMMENTS REGARDING RIVERSIDE COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER 20+ years ago, myself and others with the CVAG’s Animal Commission, asked for your consideration to support and participate in what became the Coachella Valley Animal Campus. At that time, our valley worked collaboratively, focusing on improving shelter conditions, promoting adoptions, and spaying and neutering. And, as a community, we were successful in accomplishing many of the goals set at the time.
Today, we need to build on those accomplishments by being more strategic with a focus on policies. So today I have provided information on a few items contained in the proposed contract to hopefully foster further discussion leading to the development of policies that will benefit the City of La Quinta and the entire region.
I would like to begin with a statement that our valley has a mechanism in place to work collaboratively to develop and maintain policies to support the Coachella Valley Animal Campus. Specifically, we have the Coachella Valley Animal Campus Commission, complete with Bylaws, to help support the success of the Campus. There are 2 sections within the bylaws I would like to brief review:
First:
Second:
Regarding Item D. Recommend policies for the operation of the Animal Campus, . . .
Adoptions, spaying, and neutering are often the first things we think about when talking about animal welfare. But effective policies are an important and significant part of improving outcomes for our community and its animals. I have highlighted a few items in the proposed contract that I hope will demonstrate the need for a collaborative approach to developing effective policies for the operation of the Animal Campus.
Review municipal code :
Policy discussion: Dog License/Microchipping
1. Is the contract consistent with the municipal code?
2. Is there a barrier for constituents to comply?
3. Is there a CA State requirement?
4. Does this satisfy Article 2, D. - Reunite pets and owners? The following is a screenshot of the La Quinta municipal code 10.08 Dog Licenses.
The City’s municipal code consistently reads that a microchip be implanted by a CA licensed veterinarian. This requirement is not mentioned in the contract.
The following is a screenshot from the contract: EXHIBIT B-1, C, 18:
The following is a screenshot from the Veterinary Medical Board regarding Microchip Implantation.
Please note the following in the final paragraph: The VMB accepted the opinion by a 4/2 majority; therefore concluding that the microchip procedure was not the practice of veterinary medicine.
Contract: Exhibit A-1, C. SCOPE OF ANIMAL SHELTER SERVICES, Item 1., 1.8.
Policy discussion:
1. Should there be a policy on how new services will be added or changed at the Animal Campus? a. Is the online service meeting the needs of the community? b. Why should a change occur?
c. What is the expected outcome?
d. Can the service be improved?
2. Does this program satisfy Article 2, D: Reunite pets and owners? From the contract:
Here is a screen shot from RCDAS website for the public to report lost and found animals online:
Contract: Exhibit B-1, C. SCOPE OF ANIMAL SHELTER SERVICES, Item 7.
Policy discussions:
1. Is the 90% live release rate a benchmark, a policy, or goal?
2. If a policy, compare and contrast the policy to the State of California.
3. What are the supporting actions necessary to achieve the goal of a 90%? The last sentence of this section: COUNTY shall continue to work toward the goal of a 90% live release rate (commonly referred to as “No Kill” facility) and provide periodic updates through the Ad-Hoc approved by Riverside County Board of Supervisors on July 30, 2024.
A screen shot of the contract discussing “No Kill”:
The following screen shots are from Best Friends website, No-Kill 2025 A portion of 3rd paragraph reads:
No-Kill is a collaboration between shelters and their community. The first step is for individuals to understand the progress being made in their own community and to know how they can help.
Contract: Exhibit A-1, C. SCOPE OF ANIMAL SHELTER SERVICES, Item 21.
Policy discussion:
1. What should be the procedure to enact policies that materially affect the operations of the CVAC? Ex: Should all affected jurisdictions formally approve?
2. What are the identified support actions required of the city, community, principal territory, private and non-profit sectors?
Screen shot from the contract:
Screen shots from RCDAS website:
The following is the National Animal Care & Control Association’s position statement for Animal Control Intake of Free-Roaming Cats referenced by RCDAS. See page 2 for a listing of program requirements and exceptions. 
Policy Discussion:
Contract: Exhibit B-1, B Definitions, Items 2 and 3
The definitions contained in the contract for Adoptable Animal, Treatable, and Untreatable Animal are different than contained in Civil Code 1834.4 and Food and Agricultural Codes 17005 and 17706.
Policy discussion: Definitions:
1. Are these definitions used uniformly in CVAC’s principal territory?
2. When using these definitions, what are the potential or possible implications and outcomes for a contractor, staff, constituents, and the animals?
3. How will these definitions be used and for what purpose?
4. Why are these definitions different from CA Civil Code and the Food and Agricultural Code?
5. Can we compare and explain the difference in language between the CA codes and contract? Here is a screen shot from the contract - Exhibit B-1, B Definitions, Items 2 and 3 Here screen shots from California Legislation Information website:
Policy decisions discussions - Special considerations:
1. Effect of policy decisions by a city and the surrounding cities.
2. Are the policies meeting the needs of the citizens of the jurisdiction? Differing policy decisions can have a material impact on adjacent and neighboring jurisdictions. Here is an overview of the intakes on a jurisdiction adjacent to the CVAC. Specifically, how the Palm Springs Animal Shelter (PSAS) compares to CVAC.
There is strong evidence to support that policies can affect constituent behavior and preferred animal welfare service provider.
Policy information provided by PSAS from their website:
1. The following is a screenshot of a portion of the mission from the Palm Springs Animal Shelter’s website: https://psanimalshelter.org/about/mission-and-history/
2. Also, PSAS reports that the Live Release Rate (LRR) is a meaningful parameter to indicate a community’s progress toward improving outcomes for its animals. Please see PSAS’s 2023 statistical reports below.
The following charts show that strays and owner relinquished animal rates are significantly higher in Palm Springs than any other Coachella Valley city. The reason for the significant difference can be attributed to the differing policies between the shelters. PSAS is considered a shelter that will treat the animals in their care.
The following information has been taken from the published 2023 Riverside County By City Impounds report and the published 2023 PSAS Shelter Statistics:
Stray Intakes in 2023: Summary of ALL Coachella Valley Cities STRAYS - 2023 CATS DOGS TOTAL
COUNT % COUNT % COUNT %
Cathedral City 291 14% 262 13% 553 13%
Coachella 335 16% 318 16% 653 16%
Desert Hot Springs 7 0% 8 0% 15 0%
Indian Wells 10 0% 1 0% 11 0%
Indio 362 17% 546 27% 908 22%
La Quinta 75 4% 97 5% 172 4%
Palm Desert 130 6% 78 4% 208 5%
Rancho Mirage 36 2% 15 1% 51 1%
Palm Springs 846 40% 726 35% 1,572 38%
Total for all CV Cities 2,092 100% 2,051 100% 4,143 100% The Palm Springs Animal Shelter accounted for 38% of all stray cats and dogs brought into the 2 shelters (CVAC and PSAS).
Owner Surrender Intakes in 2023: Summary of ALL Coachella Valley Cities
OWNER SURRENDERS
2023
CATS DOGS TOTAL
COUNT % COUNT % COUNT %
Cathedral City 9 3% 19 5% 28 4%
Coachella 15 4% 46 13% 61 9%
Desert Hot Springs 0 0% 3 1% 3 0%
Indian Wells 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Indio 3 1% 45 13% 48 7%
La Quinta 21 6% 21 6% 42 6%
Palm Desert 23 7% 12 3% 35 5%
Rancho Mirage 2 1% 0 0% 2 0%
Palm Springs 265 78% 205 58% 470 68%
Total for all CV Cities 338 100% 351 100% 689 100%
The Palm Springs Animal Shelter accounts for 68% of all Owner Surrendered cats and dogs brought into the 2 shelters (CVAC and PSAS).
Owner Surrender & Stray Intakes in 2023: Summary of ALL Coachella Valley Cities
STRAYS & OWNER
SURRENDERS 2023
CATS DOGS TOTAL
COUNT % COUNT % COUNT %
Cathedral City 300 12% 281 19% 581 12%
Coachella 350 14% 364 25% 714 15%
Desert Hot Springs 7 0% 11 1% 18 0%
Indian Wells 10 0% 1 0% 11 0%
Indio 365 15% 591 40% 956 20%
La Quinta 96 4% 118 8% 214 4%
Palm Desert 153 6% 90 6% 243 5%
Rancho Mirage 38 2% 15 1% 53 1%
Palm Springs 1,111 46% 931 63% 2,042 42%
Total for all CV Cities 2,430 100% 1,471 100% 4,832 100% The Palm Springs Animal Shelter accounts for 42% of all Owner Surrendered and Stray cats and dogs brought into the 2 shelters (CVAC and PSAS).