Attachment F
Correspondence from the Public
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 3:22 PM
To: June Catalano <[email protected]>
Subject: We Deserve More From Our County’s Animal Services Agreement! Dear City Manager June W. Catalano,
As a Contra Costa resident who cares about animal welfare and one of over 250,000 In Defense of Animals supporters, I’m writing to express my grave concerns regarding the proposed City‐ County Animal Services Agreement. The proposed Agreement does not include essential community services that protect our animal companions, community cats, and wild animals.
In 2020, CCAS eliminated all services for injured wildlife. When a good Samaritan saw a gravely injured buck struggling by the side of the road, she pulled over and made numerous calls for assistance. She was horrified and heartbroken when she and her young children had to give up and leave him. In an email dated October 12, 2021, Beth Ward responded, “We are currently in discussions with our city partners to hopefully remedy the situation as it is very upsetting to all involved.” Nevertheless, the proposed agreement does not reinstate this service. It is ghastly and inhumane to leave animals struck by cars to suffer for hours or even days in roadways. It’s also dangerous. When animals are struck by cars, drivers will swerve to avoid causing further injury. When Animal Services refuses to transport injured animals to Lindsay Wildlife Hospital, residents will put themselves at risk of injury and disease when they try to perform the duties of trained volunteers and professionals.
The increasing fee plan included Animal Care Coordinators to implement operational Pet Retention, Transfer Partners, and Adoption programs. These, too, are absent in the proposed agreement. As a result, impounded adoptable animals would be in danger of being killed rather than redeemed to their guardians, transferred to rescues, or adopted into safe and loving homes.
This proposed agreement's scope of services and standard of care are alarmingly vague. For example, the agreement doesn’t specify how many spay/neuter appointments will be provided.
As of March 12, 2022, the CCAS website states that all appointments have already been booked until late June.
Please collaborate with your fellow city officials and other stakeholders. You can look at other City‐County Animal Services Agreements. For example, San Mateo County contracts with 20 cities, and its agreement is 145 pages long. The standard of care promised includes, “Policies and procedures in accordance with the Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters published by the Association of Shelter Veterinarians, ASPCA, the Humane Society of the United States, and/or other currently accepted best practices for animal sheltering.
You can see that here: https://www.idausa.org/AnimalServicesAgreementSanMateo Contra Costa County contracts with 18 cities, and its proposed agreement is a mere seven pages long. CCAS promises no standard of care whatsoever. A bullet point states, “Provide care for sheltered animals.”
You can see that here: https://www.idausa.org/AnimalServicesAgreementContraCosta It is also troubling that the cities’ per capita fees increase every year while the contribution from the County’s General Fund remains the same. CCAS failed to submit its application to the Measure X Advisory Board. A Grand Jury recommended that CCAS apply for Measure X funding to lower the projected cost to CCAS‐contracted cities and to support additional low‐cost spay and neuter services.
Increased services should be offered in return for increased funding. Please negotiate for a comprehensive, fair, and humane Animal Services Agreement. The residents of all species in your city deserve nothing less!
Thank you for your consideration of this urgent matter.
Sincerely,
Ms. Rajinder Saini
912 Santa Cruz Dr Pleasant Hill, CA 94523‐2329 [email protected] From: Brian Meek <[email protected]>
Date: March 30, 2022 at 2:18:58 PM PDT
To: June Catalano <[email protected]>
Subject: We Deserve More From Our County’s Animal Services Agreement! Reply-To: [email protected]
Dear City Manager June W. Catalano,
As a Contra Costa resident who cares about animal welfare and one of over 250,000 In Defense of Animals supporters, I’m writing to express my grave concerns regarding the proposed CityCounty Animal Services Agreement. The proposed Agreement does not include essential community services that protect our animal companions, community cats, and wild animals.
In 2020, CCAS eliminated all services for injured wildlife. When a good Samaritan saw a gravely injured buck struggling by the side of the road, she pulled over and made numerous calls for assistance. She was horrified and heartbroken when she and her young children had to give up and leave him. In an email dated October 12, 2021, Beth Ward responded, “We are currently in discussions with our city partners to hopefully remedy the situation as it is very upsetting to all involved.” Nevertheless, the proposed agreement does not reinstate this service. It is ghastly and inhumane to leave animals struck by cars to suffer for hours or even days in roadways. It’s also dangerous. When animals are struck by cars, drivers will swerve to avoid causing further injury.
When Animal Services refuses to transport injured animals to Lindsay Wildlife Hospital, residents will put themselves at risk of injury and disease when they try to perform the duties of trained volunteers and professionals.
The increasing fee plan included Animal Care Coordinators to implement operational Pet Retention, Transfer Partners, and Adoption programs. These, too, are absent in the proposed agreement. As a result, impounded adoptable animals would be in danger of being killed rather than redeemed to their guardians, transferred to rescues, or adopted into safe and loving homes.
This proposed agreement's scope of services and standard of care are alarmingly vague. For example, the agreement doesn’t specify how many spay/neuter appointments will be provided.
As of March 12, 2022, the CCAS website states that all appointments have already been booked until late June.
Please collaborate with your fellow city officials and other stakeholders. You can look at other City-County Animal Services Agreements. For example, San Mateo County contracts with 20 cities, and its agreement is 145 pages long. The standard of care promised includes, “Policies and procedures in accordance with the Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters published by the Association of Shelter Veterinarians, ASPCA, the Humane Society of the United States, and/or other currently accepted best practices for animal sheltering.
You can see that here: https://www.idausa.org/AnimalServicesAgreementSanMateo Contra Costa County contracts with 18 cities, and its proposed agreement is a mere seven pages long. CCAS promises no standard of care whatsoever. A bullet point states, “Provide care for sheltered animals.”
You can see that here: https://www.idausa.org/AnimalServicesAgreementContraCosta It is also troubling that the cities’ per capita fees increase every year while the contribution from the County’s General Fund remains the same. CCAS failed to submit its application to the Measure X Advisory Board. A Grand Jury recommended that CCAS apply for Measure X funding to lower the projected cost to CCAS-contracted cities and to support additional low-cost spay and neuter services.
Increased services should be offered in return for increased funding. Please negotiate for a comprehensive, fair, and humane Animal Services Agreement. The residents of all species in your city deserve nothing less!
Thank you for your consideration of this urgent matter.
Sincerely,
Mr. Brian Meek
600 Longbrook Way Apt 251 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-2479
[email protected]
From: Laura Greenfield <[email protected]> Date: April 11, 2022 at 2:44:07 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: We Deserve More From Our County’s Animal Services Agreement! Reply-To: [email protected]
Dear Mayor Michael G. Harris,
As a Contra Costa resident who cares about animal welfare and one of over 250,000 In Defense of Animals supporters, I’m writing to express my grave concerns regarding the proposed CityCounty Animal Services Agreement. The proposed Agreement does not include essential community services that protect our animal companions, community cats, and wild animals.
In 2020, CCAS eliminated all services for injured wildlife. When a good Samaritan saw a gravely injured buck struggling by the side of the road, she pulled over and made numerous calls for assistance. She was horrified and heartbroken when she and her young children had to give up and leave him. In an email dated October 12, 2021, Beth Ward responded, “We are currently in discussions with our city partners to hopefully remedy the situation as it is very upsetting to all involved.” Nevertheless, the proposed agreement does not reinstate this service. It is ghastly and inhumane to leave animals struck by cars to suffer for hours or even days in roadways. It’s also dangerous. When animals are struck by cars, drivers will swerve to avoid causing further injury.
When Animal Services refuses to transport injured animals to Lindsay Wildlife Hospital, residents will put themselves at risk of injury and disease when they try to perform the duties of trained volunteers and professionals.
The increasing fee plan included Animal Care Coordinators to implement operational Pet Retention, Transfer Partners, and Adoption programs. These, too, are absent in the proposed agreement. As a result, impounded adoptable animals would be in danger of being killed rather than redeemed to their guardians, transferred to rescues, or adopted into safe and loving homes.
This proposed agreement's scope of services and standard of care are alarmingly vague. For example, the agreement doesn’t specify how many spay/neuter appointments will be provided.
As of March 12, 2022, the CCAS website states that all appointments have already been booked until late June.
Please collaborate with your fellow city officials and other stakeholders. You can look at other City-County Animal Services Agreements. For example, San Mateo County contracts with 20 cities, and its agreement is 145 pages long. The standard of care promised includes, “Policies and procedures in accordance with the Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters published by the Association of Shelter Veterinarians, ASPCA, the Humane Society of the United States, and/or other currently accepted best practices for animal sheltering.
You can see that here: https://www.idausa.org/AnimalServicesAgreementSanMateo Contra Costa County contracts with 18 cities, and its proposed agreement is a mere seven pages long. CCAS promises no standard of care whatsoever. A bullet point states, “Provide care for sheltered animals.”
You can see that here: https://www.idausa.org/AnimalServicesAgreementContraCosta It is also troubling that the cities’ per capita fees increase every year while the contribution from the County’s General Fund remains the same. CCAS failed to submit its application to the Measure X Advisory Board. A Grand Jury recommended that CCAS apply for Measure X funding to lower the projected cost to CCAS-contracted cities and to support additional low-cost spay and neuter services.
Increased services should be offered in return for increased funding. Please negotiate for a comprehensive, fair, and humane Animal Services Agreement. The residents of all species in your city deserve nothing less!
Thank you for your consideration of this urgent matter.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Laura Greenfield
3090 Vessing Rd Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-4517
[email protected]
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 7:45 AM
To: June Catalano <[email protected]>
Subject: We Deserve More From Our County’s Animal Services Agreement! Dear City Manager June W. Catalano,
As a Contra Costa resident who cares about animal welfare and one of over 250,000 In Defense of Animals supporters, I’m writing to express my grave concerns regarding the proposed City‐ County Animal Services Agreement. The proposed Agreement does not include essential community services that protect our animal companions, community cats, and wild animals.
In 2020, CCAS eliminated all services for injured wildlife. When a good Samaritan saw a gravely injured buck struggling by the side of the road, she pulled over and made numerous calls for assistance. She was horrified and heartbroken when she and her young children had to give up and leave him. In an email dated October 12, 2021, Beth Ward responded, “We are currently in discussions with our city partners to hopefully remedy the situation as it is very upsetting to all involved.” Nevertheless, the proposed agreement does not reinstate this service. It is ghastly and inhumane to leave animals struck by cars to suffer for hours or even days in roadways. It’s also dangerous. When animals are struck by cars, drivers will swerve to avoid causing further injury. When Animal Services refuses to transport injured animals to Lindsay Wildlife Hospital, residents will put themselves at risk of injury and disease when they try to perform the duties of trained volunteers and professionals.
The increasing fee plan included Animal Care Coordinators to implement operational Pet Retention, Transfer Partners, and Adoption programs. These, too, are absent in the proposed agreement. As a result, impounded adoptable animals would be in danger of being killed rather than redeemed to their guardians, transferred to rescues, or adopted into safe and loving homes.
This proposed agreement's scope of services and standard of care are alarmingly vague. For example, the agreement doesn’t specify how many spay/neuter appointments will be provided.
As of March 12, 2022, the CCAS website states that all appointments have already been booked until late June.
Please collaborate with your fellow city officials and other stakeholders. You can look at other City‐County Animal Services Agreements. For example, San Mateo County contracts with 20 cities, and its agreement is 145 pages long. The standard of care promised includes, “Policies and procedures in accordance with the Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters published by the Association of Shelter Veterinarians, ASPCA, the Humane Society of the United States, and/or other currently accepted best practices for animal sheltering.
You can see that here: https://www.idausa.org/AnimalServicesAgreementSanMateo Contra Costa County contracts with 18 cities, and its proposed agreement is a mere seven pages long. CCAS promises no standard of care whatsoever. A bullet point states, “Provide care for sheltered animals.”
You can see that here: https://www.idausa.org/AnimalServicesAgreementContraCosta It is also troubling that the cities’ per capita fees increase every year while the contribution from the County’s General Fund remains the same. CCAS failed to submit its application to the Measure X Advisory Board. A Grand Jury recommended that CCAS apply for Measure X funding to lower the projected cost to CCAS‐contracted cities and to support additional low‐cost spay and neuter services.
Increased services should be offered in return for increased funding. Please negotiate for a comprehensive, fair, and humane Animal Services Agreement. The residents of all species in your city deserve nothing less!
Thank you for your consideration of this urgent matter.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Tamara Rieser
104 Emerson Ct Pleasant Hill, CA 94523‐4109 [email protected] From: Sarah Westphal <[email protected]>
Subject: We Deserve More From Our County’s Animal Services Agreement! Date: April 11, 2022 at 8:10:38 AM PDT
To: <[email protected]>
Resent-From: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Dear Mayor Michael G. Harris,
As a Contra Costa resident who cares about animal welfare and one of over 250,000 In Defense of Animals supporters, I’m writing to express my grave concerns regarding the proposed CityCounty Animal Services Agreement. The proposed Agreement does not include essential community services that protect our animal companions, community cats, and wild animals.
In 2020, CCAS eliminated all services for injured wildlife. When a good Samaritan saw a gravely injured buck struggling by the side of the road, she pulled over and made numerous calls for assistance. She was horrified and heartbroken when she and her young children had to give up and leave him. In an email dated October 12, 2021, Beth Ward responded, “We are currently in discussions with our city partners to hopefully remedy the situation as it is very upsetting to all involved.” Nevertheless, the proposed agreement does not reinstate this service. It is ghastly and inhumane to leave animals struck by cars to suffer for hours or even days in roadways. It’s also dangerous. When animals are struck by cars, drivers will swerve to avoid causing further injury.
When Animal Services refuses to transport injured animals to Lindsay Wildlife Hospital, residents will put themselves at risk of injury and disease when they try to perform the duties of trained volunteers and professionals.
The increasing fee plan included Animal Care Coordinators to implement operational Pet Retention, Transfer Partners, and Adoption programs. These, too, are absent in the proposed agreement. As a result, impounded adoptable animals would be in danger of being killed rather than redeemed to their guardians, transferred to rescues, or adopted into safe and loving homes.
This proposed agreement's scope of services and standard of care are alarmingly vague. For example, the agreement doesn’t specify how many spay/neuter appointments will be provided.
As of March 12, 2022, the CCAS website states that all appointments have already been booked until late June.
Please collaborate with your fellow city officials and other stakeholders. You can look at other City-County Animal Services Agreements. For example, San Mateo County contracts with 20 cities, and its agreement is 145 pages long. The standard of care promised includes, “Policies and procedures in accordance with the Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters published by the Association of Shelter Veterinarians, ASPCA, the Humane Society of the United States, and/or other currently accepted best practices for animal sheltering.
You can see that here: https://www.idausa.org/AnimalServicesAgreementSanMateo Contra Costa County contracts with 18 cities, and its proposed agreement is a mere seven pages long. CCAS promises no standard of care whatsoever. A bullet point states, “Provide care for sheltered animals.”
You can see that here: https://www.idausa.org/AnimalServicesAgreementContraCosta It is also troubling that the cities’ per capita fees increase every year while the contribution from the County’s General Fund remains the same. CCAS failed to submit its application to the Measure X Advisory Board. A Grand Jury recommended that CCAS apply for Measure X funding to lower the projected cost to CCAS-contracted cities and to support additional low-cost spay and neuter services.
Increased services should be offered in return for increased funding. Please negotiate for a comprehensive, fair, and humane Animal Services Agreement. The residents of all species in your city deserve nothing less!
Thank you for your consideration of this urgent matter.
Sincerely,
Sarah Westphal
31 Byron Dr Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-4102
[email protected]
Michael G. Harris, OD
Mayor, City of Pleasant Hill
Please excuse dictation typos.
"We may not be able to prepare the future for our children, but we can at least prepare our children for the future.” **************************************************************** Michael G. Harris, OD, JD, MS, FAAO
Associate Dean Emeritus Clinical Professor Emeritus
University of California, School of Optometry, Berkeley, CA 94720-2020 [email protected]
**************************************************************** NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or disclosing its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding, or saving them.
The opinions and statements expressed herein are those of the sender and should not be taken as a position, opinion, or endorsement by the University of California, its School of Optometry, the City of Pleasant Hill, or its City Council. Thank you. **************************************************************** From: Gloria Larsen <[email protected]> Date: April 12, 2022 at 6:58:37 AM HST
To: [email protected]
Subject: We Deserve More From Our County’s Animal Services Agreement! Reply-To: [email protected]
Dear Mayor Michael G. Harris,
As a Contra Costa resident who cares about animal welfare and one of over 250,000 In Defense of Animals supporters, I’m writing to express my grave concerns regarding the proposed CityCounty Animal Services Agreement. The proposed Agreement does not include essential community services that protect our animal companions, community cats, and wild animals.
In 2020, CCAS eliminated all services for injured wildlife. When a good Samaritan saw a gravely injured buck struggling by the side of the road, she pulled over and made numerous calls for assistance. She was horrified and heartbroken when she and her young children had to give up and leave him. In an email dated October 12, 2021, Beth Ward responded, “We are currently in discussions with our city partners to hopefully remedy the situation as it is very upsetting to all involved.” Nevertheless, the proposed agreement does not reinstate this service. It is ghastly and inhumane to leave animals struck by cars to suffer for hours or even days in roadways. It’s also dangerous. When animals are struck by cars, drivers will swerve to avoid causing further injury.
When Animal Services refuses to transport injured animals to Lindsay Wildlife Hospital, residents will put themselves at risk of injury and disease when they try to perform the duties of trained volunteers and professionals.
The increasing fee plan included Animal Care Coordinators to implement operational Pet Retention, Transfer Partners, and Adoption programs. These, too, are absent in the proposed agreement. As a result, impounded adoptable animals would be in danger of being killed rather than redeemed to their guardians, transferred to rescues, or adopted into safe and loving homes.
This proposed agreement's scope of services and standard of care are alarmingly vague. For example, the agreement doesn’t specify how many spay/neuter appointments will be provided.
As of March 12, 2022, the CCAS website states that all appointments have already been booked until late June.
Please collaborate with your fellow city officials and other stakeholders. You can look at other City-County Animal Services Agreements. For example, San Mateo County contracts with 20 cities, and its agreement is 145 pages long. The standard of care promised includes, “Policies and procedures in accordance with the Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters published by the Association of Shelter Veterinarians, ASPCA, the Humane Society of the United States, and/or other currently accepted best practices for animal sheltering.
You can see that here: https://www.idausa.org/AnimalServicesAgreementSanMateo Contra Costa County contracts with 18 cities, and its proposed agreement is a mere seven pages long. CCAS promises no standard of care whatsoever. A bullet point states, “Provide care for sheltered animals.”
You can see that here: https://www.idausa.org/AnimalServicesAgreementContraCosta It is also troubling that the cities’ per capita fees increase every year while the contribution from the County’s General Fund remains the same. CCAS failed to submit its application to the Measure X Advisory Board. A Grand Jury recommended that CCAS apply for Measure X funding to lower the projected cost to CCAS-contracted cities and to support additional low-cost spay and neuter services.
Increased services should be offered in return for increased funding. Please negotiate for a comprehensive, fair, and humane Animal Services Agreement. The residents of all species in your city deserve nothing less!
Thank you for your consideration of this urgent matter.
Sincerely,
Gloria Larsen
412 Soule Ave Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-3816
[email protected]
From: Darcy Mathews <[email protected]> Date: April 12, 2022 at 7:10:59 AM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: We Deserve More From Our County’s Animal Services Agreement! Reply-To: [email protected]
Dear Mayor Michael G. Harris,
YOU NEED TO STEP UP!!!!
As a Contra Costa resident who cares about animal welfare and one of over 250,000 In Defense of Animals supporters, I’m writing to express my grave concerns regarding the proposed CityCounty Animal Services Agreement. The proposed Agreement does not include essential community services that protect our animal companions, community cats, and wild animals.
In 2020, CCAS eliminated all services for injured wildlife. When a good Samaritan saw a gravely injured buck struggling by the side of the road, she pulled over and made numerous calls for assistance. She was horrified and heartbroken when she and her young children had to give up and leave him. In an email dated October 12, 2021, Beth Ward responded, “We are currently in discussions with our city partners to hopefully remedy the situation as it is very upsetting to all involved.” Nevertheless, the proposed agreement does not reinstate this service. It is ghastly and inhumane to leave animals struck by cars to suffer for hours or even days in roadways. It’s also dangerous. When animals are struck by cars, drivers will swerve to avoid causing further injury.
When Animal Services refuses to transport injured animals to Lindsay Wildlife Hospital, residents will put themselves at risk of injury and disease when they try to perform the duties of trained volunteers and professionals.
The increasing fee plan included Animal Care Coordinators to implement operational Pet Retention, Transfer Partners, and Adoption programs. These, too, are absent in the proposed agreement. As a result, impounded adoptable animals would be in danger of being killed rather than redeemed to their guardians, transferred to rescues, or adopted into safe and loving homes.
This proposed agreement's scope of services and standard of care are alarmingly vague. For example, the agreement doesn’t specify how many spay/neuter appointments will be provided.
As of March 12, 2022, the CCAS website states that all appointments have already been booked until late June.
Please collaborate with your fellow city officials and other stakeholders. You can look at other City-County Animal Services Agreements. For example, San Mateo County contracts with 20 cities, and its agreement is 145 pages long. The standard of care promised includes, “Policies and procedures in accordance with the Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters published by the Association of Shelter Veterinarians, ASPCA, the Humane Society of the United States, and/or other currently accepted best practices for animal sheltering.
You can see that here: https://www.idausa.org/AnimalServicesAgreementSanMateo Contra Costa County contracts with 18 cities, and its proposed agreement is a mere seven pages long. CCAS promises no standard of care whatsoever. A bullet point states, “Provide care for sheltered animals.”
You can see that here: https://www.idausa.org/AnimalServicesAgreementContraCosta It is also troubling that the cities’ per capita fees increase every year while the contribution from the County’s General Fund remains the same. CCAS failed to submit its application to the Measure X Advisory Board. A Grand Jury recommended that CCAS apply for Measure X funding to lower the projected cost to CCAS-contracted cities and to support additional low-cost spay and neuter services.
Increased services should be offered in return for increased funding. Please negotiate for a comprehensive, fair, and humane Animal Services Agreement. The residents of all species in your city deserve nothing less!
Thank you for your consideration of this urgent matter.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Darcy Mathews
2962 Vessing Rd Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-4515
[email protected]
From: Emily Hussey <[email protected]>
Date: April 12, 2022 at 7:23:17 AM HST
To: [email protected]
Subject: We Deserve More From Our County’s Animal Services Agreement! Reply-To: [email protected]
Dear Mayor Michael G. Harris,
As a Contra Costa resident who cares about animal welfare and one of over 250,000 In Defense of Animals supporters, I’m writing to express my grave concerns regarding the proposed CityCounty Animal Services Agreement. The proposed Agreement does not include essential community services that protect our animal companions, community cats, and wild animals.
In 2020, CCAS eliminated all services for injured wildlife. When a good Samaritan saw a gravely injured buck struggling by the side of the road, she pulled over and made numerous calls for assistance. She was horrified and heartbroken when she and her young children had to give up and leave him. In an email dated October 12, 2021, Beth Ward responded, “We are currently in discussions with our city partners to hopefully remedy the situation as it is very upsetting to all involved.” Nevertheless, the proposed agreement does not reinstate this service. It is ghastly and inhumane to leave animals struck by cars to suffer for hours or even days in roadways. It’s also dangerous. When animals are struck by cars, drivers will swerve to avoid causing further injury.
When Animal Services refuses to transport injured animals to Lindsay Wildlife Hospital, residents will put themselves at risk of injury and disease when they try to perform the duties of trained volunteers and professionals.
The increasing fee plan included Animal Care Coordinators to implement operational Pet Retention, Transfer Partners, and Adoption programs. These, too, are absent in the proposed agreement. As a result, impounded adoptable animals would be in danger of being killed rather than redeemed to their guardians, transferred to rescues, or adopted into safe and loving homes.
This proposed agreement's scope of services and standard of care are alarmingly vague. For example, the agreement doesn’t specify how many spay/neuter appointments will be provided.
As of March 12, 2022, the CCAS website states that all appointments have already been booked until late June.
Please collaborate with your fellow city officials and other stakeholders. You can look at other City-County Animal Services Agreements. For example, San Mateo County contracts with 20 cities, and its agreement is 145 pages long. The standard of care promised includes, “Policies and procedures in accordance with the Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters published by the Association of Shelter Veterinarians, ASPCA, the Humane Society of the United States, and/or other currently accepted best practices for animal sheltering.
You can see that here: https://www.idausa.org/AnimalServicesAgreementSanMateo Contra Costa County contracts with 18 cities, and its proposed agreement is a mere seven pages long. CCAS promises no standard of care whatsoever. A bullet point states, “Provide care for sheltered animals.”
You can see that here: https://www.idausa.org/AnimalServicesAgreementContraCosta It is also troubling that the cities’ per capita fees increase every year while the contribution from the County’s General Fund remains the same. CCAS failed to submit its application to the Measure X Advisory Board. A Grand Jury recommended that CCAS apply for Measure X funding to lower the projected cost to CCAS-contracted cities and to support additional low-cost spay and neuter services.
Increased services should be offered in return for increased funding. Please negotiate for a comprehensive, fair, and humane Animal Services Agreement. The residents of all species in your city deserve nothing less!
Thank you for your consideration of this urgent matter.
Sincerely,
Emily Hussey
46 Cleopatra Dr Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-3445
[email protected]
From: Gloria Larsen <[email protected]>
Date: April 12, 2022 at 10:22:15 AM HST
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Contra Costa County Animal Services Agreement
It has come to my attention that there may be a problem with reduced or inadequate services provided under the above-mentioned Agreement with the County. I am most concerned that we provide adequate and humane treatment to our wild and domesticated animals and that you fund programs with the County that fully support that agenda. Please take care in approval of this Agreement.
From: Kathleen Grant <[email protected]> Date: April 17, 2022 at 5:17:10 AM HST
To: [email protected]
Subject: We Deserve More From Our County’s Animal Services Agreement! Reply-To: [email protected]
Dear Mayor Michael G. Harris,
As a Contra Costa resident who cares about animal welfare and one of over 250,000 In Defense of Animals supporters, I’m writing to express my grave concerns regarding the proposed CityCounty Animal Services Agreement. The proposed Agreement does not include essential community services that protect our animal companions, community cats, and wild animals.
In 2020, CCAS eliminated all services for injured wildlife. When a good Samaritan saw a gravely injured buck struggling by the side of the road, she pulled over and made numerous calls for assistance. She was horrified and heartbroken when she and her young children had to give up and leave him. In an email dated October 12, 2021, Beth Ward responded, “We are currently in discussions with our city partners to hopefully remedy the situation as it is very upsetting to all involved.” Nevertheless, the proposed agreement does not reinstate this service. It is ghastly and inhumane to leave animals struck by cars to suffer for hours or even days in roadways. It’s also dangerous. When animals are struck by cars, drivers will swerve to avoid causing further injury.
When Animal Services refuses to transport injured animals to Lindsay Wildlife Hospital, residents will put themselves at risk of injury and disease when they try to perform the duties of trained volunteers and professionals.
The increasing fee plan included Animal Care Coordinators to implement operational Pet Retention, Transfer Partners, and Adoption programs. These, too, are absent in the proposed agreement. As a result, impounded adoptable animals would be in danger of being killed rather than redeemed to their guardians, transferred to rescues, or adopted into safe and loving homes.
This proposed agreement's scope of services and standard of care are alarmingly vague. For example, the agreement doesn’t specify how many spay/neuter appointments will be provided.
As of March 12, 2022, the CCAS website states that all appointments have already been booked until late June.
Please collaborate with your fellow city officials and other stakeholders. You can look at other City-County Animal Services Agreements. For example, San Mateo County contracts with 20 cities, and its agreement is 145 pages long. The standard of care promised includes, “Policies and procedures in accordance with the Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters published by the Association of Shelter Veterinarians, ASPCA, the Humane Society of the United States, and/or other currently accepted best practices for animal sheltering.
You can see that here: https://www.idausa.org/AnimalServicesAgreementSanMateo Contra Costa County contracts with 18 cities, and its proposed agreement is a mere seven pages long. CCAS promises no standard of care whatsoever. A bullet point states, “Provide care for sheltered animals.”
You can see that here: https://www.idausa.org/AnimalServicesAgreementContraCosta It is also troubling that the cities’ per capita fees increase every year while the contribution from the County’s General Fund remains the same. CCAS failed to submit its application to the Measure X Advisory Board. A Grand Jury recommended that CCAS apply for Measure X funding to lower the projected cost to CCAS-contracted cities and to support additional low-cost spay and neuter services.
Increased services should be offered in return for increased funding. Please negotiate for a comprehensive, fair, and humane Animal Services Agreement. The residents of all species in your city deserve nothing less!
Thank you for your consideration of this urgent matter.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Grant
43 Monte Cresta Ave Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-4213
[email protected]
From: Peggy Parker <[email protected]>
Date: April 18, 2022 at 4:36:52 PM HST
To: [email protected]
Subject: We Deserve More From Our County’s Animal Services Agreement! Reply-To: [email protected]
Dear Mayor Michael G. Harris,
As a Contra Costa resident who cares about animal welfare and one of over 250,000 In Defense of Animals supporters, I’m writing to express my grave concerns regarding the proposed CityCounty Animal Services Agreement. The proposed Agreement does not include essential community services that protect our animal companions, community cats, and wild animals.
In 2020, CCAS eliminated all services for injured wildlife. When a good Samaritan saw a gravely injured buck struggling by the side of the road, she pulled over and made numerous calls for assistance. She was horrified and heartbroken when she and her young children had to give up and leave him. In an email dated October 12, 2021, Beth Ward responded, “We are currently in discussions with our city partners to hopefully remedy the situation as it is very upsetting to all involved.” Nevertheless, the proposed agreement does not reinstate this service. It is ghastly and inhumane to leave animals struck by cars to suffer for hours or even days in roadways. It’s also dangerous. When animals are struck by cars, drivers will swerve to avoid causing further injury.
When Animal Services refuses to transport injured animals to Lindsay Wildlife Hospital, residents will put themselves at risk of injury and disease when they try to perform the duties of trained volunteers and professionals.
The increasing fee plan included Animal Care Coordinators to implement operational Pet Retention, Transfer Partners, and Adoption programs. These, too, are absent in the proposed agreement. As a result, impounded adoptable animals would be in danger of being killed rather than redeemed to their guardians, transferred to rescues, or adopted into safe and loving homes.
This proposed agreement's scope of services and standard of care are alarmingly vague. For example, the agreement doesn’t specify how many spay/neuter appointments will be provided.
As of March 12, 2022, the CCAS website states that all appointments have already been booked until late June.
Please collaborate with your fellow city officials and other stakeholders. You can look at other City-County Animal Services Agreements. For example, San Mateo County contracts with 20 cities, and its agreement is 145 pages long. The standard of care promised includes, “Policies and procedures in accordance with the Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters published by the Association of Shelter Veterinarians, ASPCA, the Humane Society of the United States, and/or other currently accepted best practices for animal sheltering.
You can see that here: https://www.idausa.org/AnimalServicesAgreementSanMateo Contra Costa County contracts with 18 cities, and its proposed agreement is a mere seven pages long. CCAS promises no standard of care whatsoever. A bullet point states, “Provide care for sheltered animals.”
You can see that here: https://www.idausa.org/AnimalServicesAgreementContraCosta It is also troubling that the cities’ per capita fees increase every year while the contribution from the County’s General Fund remains the same. CCAS failed to submit its application to the Measure X Advisory Board. A Grand Jury recommended that CCAS apply for Measure X funding to lower the projected cost to CCAS-contracted cities and to support additional low-cost spay and neuter services.
Increased services should be offered in return for increased funding. Please negotiate for a comprehensive, fair, and humane Animal Services Agreement. The residents of all species in your city deserve nothing less!
Thank you for your consideration of this urgent matter.
Sincerely,
Peggy Parker
113 Hardy Cir Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-3803
[email protected]