Letters from the Public — Neighborhood Services and Education Committee (nse), October 8, 2026

1 Wylie, Monica
From: Wilcox, Quentin
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 2:36 PM
To: Wylie, Monica
Cc: Lee, John; Tuyor, Gregory
Subject: Re: ACS limited public access opportunity
Hello Monica,
No, there really is no guidance regarding limiting public access while under a fire watch order. Fire watch is designed to be a stop-gap measure to provide for the same level of protection that was lost due to the system being out of service. Abiding by the terms of the fire watch allows for normal operations.

Respectfully,
Quentin Wilcox
Fire Captain | Bureau of Fire Prevention
San José Fire Department
City of San José
200 E Santa Clara Street, 2nd Floor Tower
San José, CA 95112
Office: 408-535-7670 | Cell:

Website | Facebook | Instagram | X

From: Wylie, Monica <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 2:27 PM
To: Wilcox, Quentin <[email protected]>
Subject: ACS limited public access opportunity

Hello-

I will be sending over our Fire Watch sheets later today. And will plan on doing so on Mondays.

Is there a staffing ratio or formula for allowing limited public access to the facility while we are under Fire Watch? Or recommendations?

For example: 30 staff members = 60 members of the public, etc.

Thank you for your guidance.
2 Monica

Monica Wylie, CAWA
Deputy Director
Public Works Department
City of San José Animal Care and Services
2750 Monterey Road
San Jose, CA 95111

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

For your pre-NSE Meeting review, attached and linked here is a Rebuttal to the ACS 2025-2026 Annual Report, Agenda Item (d)2.

Attachments A and B referenced in the rebuttal are also attached, and links are provided in the rebuttal as well.

Among other findings, the Report's Live Release Rates come with no calculation or Asilomar report, its shelter comparisons are unsourced, and 7,375 of its 19,065 field calls are unexplained. By ACS's own numbers, the cat Live Release Rate fell to 80%, a ten-year low, and cat euthanasia rose 19%, even though cat intake fell 7%.

We ask the Committee to:

1. Decline to accept the Report and direct ACS to resubmit it with the documents listed in Section 4 of our rebuttal.

2. Direct ACS to return with a measurable plan to reverse the alarming decline in cat outcomes, without waiting for a revised report.

Please include this rebuttal in the public record for this item before the meeting and reply to confirm receipt.

Thank you,
San José Animal Partners
A group of shelter advocates

REBUTTAL TO ANIMAL CARE & SERVICES
2025-2026 ANNUAL REPORT
October 8, 2026 - Neighborhood Services and Education Committee Agenda Item (d)2 Submitted by: San José Animal Partners (a group of animal advocates) on October 6, 2026 Attachment A - ACS Asilomar Report FY 2024-25
Attachment B - San José Animal Partners Mock Asilomar Report FY 2025-26 (analysis using the Report’s own figures).

Opening Statement
For years, the Mayor and City Council have accepted reports from Animal Care & Services with unanimous approval. We are not aware of any instance where a no vote has been issued. This pattern implies an unwritten agreement that every report will be a pass-through. To clarify: as advocates we consider this a dereliction of duty, and it has not gone unnoticed.

Any councilmember who votes to accept this report without the source documents behind its claims is doing so knowingly. Those votes contribute to a culture of controlling the narrative rather than caring about what is happening to animals in the City’s care. As the findings below show, this report gives councilmembers no basis for acceptance.

We ask the Committee to decline to accept the Report and to direct ACS to complete it and resubmit it with the documents listed in Section 4.

Executive Summary
The Annual Report, as submitted, is not a complete report. It makes claim after claim that cannot be verified from anything it provides: Live Release Rates with no calculation, comparisons to other shelters with no sources, “48 new Rescue Partners” with no names, a Field call total that exceeds its own breakdown by 7,375 calls, and a declaration that audit recommendations are complete when that is disputed and unverified. We ask the Committee to decline to accept the Report and to direct ACS to complete it and resubmit it with the documents listed in Section 4.

Findings:
• The stated Live Release Rates may be correct but calculations are not provided. The Report shows no calculation, discloses no exclusions, and omits the Asilomar form its methodology depends on.
• By ACS’s own numbers, results declined. The overall Live Release Rate fell from

89.05% to 86.22% and the cat Live Release Rate from 85.99% to 80%. Adoptions fell 11%, cat adoptions 17%, while cat euthanasia rose 19%. The Report calls this “strong.” • The cat Live Release Rate is at a ten-year low, even though the shelter’s budget has more than doubled.
• Rescue transfers remain a fraction of past levels, and the Report hides the trend inside one merged figure.
• The comparisons to other shelters are unsourced and, where we could check them, do not match those shelters’ own published data.

Rebuttal to ACS 2025-2026 Annual Report – NSE Item (d)2 – Page 1 • Field service numbers do not reconcile: 7,375 calls (39%) of the 19,065 total are unexplained.
• Claims of 48 new rescue partners, a completed audit, and community engagement are unsubstantiated or disputed.
• The Report omits the dramatic decline of dog playgroups, the program behind the one genuinely strong number in the Report, the dog Live Release Rate.

1. The Reality Under Which This Report Is Submitted
The Report describes a year of “strong progress.” It acknowledges none of the longstanding concerns about this shelter, which three independent reviews have corroborated:
• Maddie’s Million Pet Challenge (2022): more than 200 recommendations covering overcrowding, staffing, animal flow and weak data management. • City Auditor (November 2024): eight findings and 39 recommendations, including capacity constraints, gaps in protocols and recordkeeping, and declining engagement with rescue partners.
• Civil Grand Jury (May 2026): found that transfers to rescue organizations declined significantly, animals stay longer than in FY 2021-22, and animal deaths have increased. It also found that ACS changed data categories and methodologies without explanation, and raised a trust gap with advocates.

What happened in FY 2025-26, none of which the Report mentions:
• July 2025: former employees, volunteers and rescue groups publicly called for new shelter leadership, alleging mistreatment of animals and retaliation against people who raised concerns (San José Spotlight, July 13, 2025).
• January 2026: the shelter was over capacity and asked the public to keep stray dogs (NBC Bay Area, January 13, 2026). The same month, advocates retained an attorney and sent the City a letter demanding immediate improvements (Mercury News, January 13, 2026). This resulted in immediate retaliation.
• March 2026: on a shelter tour, the Grand Jury saw air flowing from the closed quarantine ward into a public hallway, meaning the ventilation was working in reverse, and found the condition should have been caught and corrected by trained staff. • March 2026: the City Auditor reported all 39 recommendations implemented or addressed. The Grand Jury notes this relied on documentation supplied by the shelter, with no onsite follow-up audit.
• May 2026: the Grand Jury found more than 800 animals in five years of shelter data with no recorded outcome, and that prior-year intake had been restated (FY 2023-24 intake appeared as 13,212 in one annual report and 12,233 in the next). • August 1, 2026: ACS was moved from Public Works to PRNS.

Rebuttal to ACS 2025-2026 Annual Report – NSE Item (d)2 – Page 2

2. Response to the Report’s Claims

2.1 “Compares favorably”: the Live Release Rates cannot be verified The Report says ACS “compares favorably” with other Bay Area shelters and states Live Release Rates of 95% for dogs, 80% for cats and 86.22% overall, claiming one of the highest among large municipal shelters in the region. It shows no calculation. We ran one.

Dogs Cats All animals
Rate stated in the Report 95% 80% 86.22%
Rate from the Report’s own Chart 2 counts,
Asilomar formula, no exclusions

86.0% 78.6% 82.0%
Euthanasias that would have to be excluded
to reach the stated rate (approx.)
385 107 527
Source: Report, Chart 2 (live outcomes and total euthanasia by species); Asilomar formula = live outcomes ÷ (live outcomes + euthanasia). See Attachment B.

The Asilomar formula allows one major exclusion: euthanasia requested by an owner for an animal the shelter itself classifies as Unhealthy and Untreatable. ACS’s own FY 2024-25 Asilomar Report (Attachment A) demonstrates how that exclusion works.

It removed 604 of 1,785 euthanasias (34%) from the calculation, including 474 of 622 dog and puppy euthanasias (76%). The stated FY 2025-26 rates are consistent with a similar exclusion of roughly 527 euthanasias.

The FY 2025-26 Report discloses none of this: no exclusion, no count, no classification criteria, and no Asilomar form. It also says nothing about animals that died or were lost in shelter care (335 in FY 2024-25 per Attachment A), which the Asilomar rate also leaves out. The 95%, 80% and 86.22% are therefore assertions, not results the Committee can check.

The stated rates *may be* correct. However, this report asks the Committee to take its numbers on faith. Given ACS’s track record and the low-to-no trust environment, a higher level of scrutiny is in order.

Chart 3 in the Report also lists San José’s euthanasia rate as 14%. ACS’s own counts show 1,937 euthanasias on 11,219 intakes, about 17%. The Report does not say what the 14% includes or excludes.

2.2 By ACS’s own numbers, outcomes got worse
Comparing ACS’s FY 2024-25 Asilomar Report with the FY 2025-26 Report:

Measure FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 Change
Overall Live Release Rate 89.05% 86.22% −2.8 points
Cat Live Release Rate 85.99% 80% −6.0 points
Dog Live Release Rate 95.26% 95% flat
Total live outcomes 9,600 8,820 −780 (−8.1%)
Adoptions 4,639 4,131 −508 (−10.9%)
Rebuttal to ACS 2025-2026 Annual Report – NSE Item (d)2 – Page 3 Measure FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 Change
Cat adoptions 3,160 2,614 −546 (−17.3%)
Cat live outcomes 6,131 4,889 −1,242 (−20.3%)
Cat intake 7,176 6,644 −532 (−7.4%)
Cat euthanasia 1,116 1,329 +213 (+19.1%)
Source: ACS Asilomar Report FY 2024-25 (Attachment A; puppies counted with dogs and kittens with cats to match the Report’s categories) and FY 2025-26 Report, Charts 1 and 2. FY 2025-26 rates are as stated in the Report.

Cat intake fell 7%. Live cat outcomes fell 20%. Cat euthanasia rose 19%. None of these declines are acknowledged in the Report.

2.3 The cat Live Release Rate is at a ten-year low
Fiscal year Cat LRR
2016-17 89.0%
2017-18 90.0%
2018-19 91.0%
2019-20 90.0%
2020-21 90.0%
2021-22 87.9%
2022-23 83.2%
2023-24 85.6%
2024-25 86.0%
2025-26 80.1%
Source: shelter records. FY 2024-25 (86.0%) matches ACS’s Asilomar Report (85.99%); FY 2025-26 (80.1%) matches the Report’s stated 80%.

The cat rate fell six full points in a single year, from 86% to 80%, the sharpest drop in the series and the lowest rate in the ten years that the shelter provides on its public dashboard. Improving the cat Live Release Rate must be a TOP PRIORITY. Resources have increased. Results have decreased.

In FY 2020-21 the shelter took in 9,958 cats with a budget of about $9.6 million and 76 staff, and its cat Live Release Rate was 90%. In FY 2025-26 it took in 6,644 cats with a budget of roughly $17.5 million, nearly $8 million more, and 102 budgeted staff, and the rate is 80% (budget and staffing: Civil Grand Jury Report, Figure 1; FY 2020-21 intake: Figure 2).

It is disturbing that the Report characterizes live outcomes as 'strong' in a year when the cat Live Release Rate fell to 80%. This is misleading to the Committee and the public and has no basis in reality.

The Report blames a “very high-risk population” using the classification of “Unhealthy/Untreatable” (U/U) for the low Cat LRR. However, by its own figures, only 34% of cats and 41% of kittens were classified as U/U, which means most were not. That category also includes unweaned kittens, and the Report says 89% of U/U kittens were saved.

Rebuttal to ACS 2025-2026 Annual Report – NSE Item (d)2 – Page 4 If the number of U/U cats is being offered as an explanation for poor feline outcomes, Committee members should ask management to explain how kittens can reportedly have the higher U/U percentage, an 89% U/U Live Release Rate, and yet experience a dramatic increase in euthanasia.

Given that 34% of adult cats were identified as U/U, it stands to reason that 66% were identified as healthy or treatable. Adult cat euthanasia is flat year over year ( 24-25: 709 vs 25-26: 715). Is the shelter’s move away from Return to Field (RTF) putting healthy adult cats at a higher risk of euthanasia?

2.4 “Live outcomes remain strong across adoption, rescue partners, return-to-owner, and return-to-field pathways”
This statement cannot be substantiated.

Adoptions. Cat adoptions fell 17.3% year over year, from 3,160 to 2,614, and total adoptions fell 10.9%, from 4,639 to 4,131 (Attachment A and Report, Chart 2). The Report presents 4,131 adoptions as an accomplishment without noting the decline.

Rescue & Transfers. The Civil Grand Jury found that transfers to rescue partners fell from 4,776 in FY 2020-21 to 1,159 in FY 2024-25 and that rescue placements had not yet improved.

ACS’s public dashboard shows combined rescue and transfer outcomes of:
1,455 (FY 2022-23)
1,264 (FY 2023-24)
1,159 (FY 2024-25)
1,475 (FY 2025-26)
These dashboard figures differ from the Report's 2,710 "Rescues/Transfer" figure; ACS has not explained what the 2,710 includes (see Section 4, item 3). Even with this year's overall rescue and transfer combined uptick (1,159 FY 24-25 to 1,475 FY 25-26), rescue partner participation has not recovered. In fact, at the December 2023 NSE Meeting, former ACS Deputy Director Jay Terrado admitted that rescues had been “ignored” and pledged to re-engage with them.

Sadly, the data does not confirm this.

Rescue Only:
3,700 (FY 2020-21)
2,663 (FY 2021-22)
1,138 (FY 2022-23)
804 (FY 2023-24)
691 (FY 2024-25)
691 (FY 2025-26)
Rescue partner participation remains at 691 for a second straight year, down 39% since FY 2022-23. The Report's merged 2,710 figure does not show this.

Return to Owner (RTO). The Report lists 1,113 RTOs (963 dogs, 135 cats and 15 other animals) but gives no RTO rate, so there is no way to tell what percentage of lost pets are actually being reunited with their families.

Rebuttal to ACS 2025-2026 Annual Report – NSE Item (d)2 – Page 5 Return to Field (RTF). The Report lists 866 cats RTF’d, nearly 18% of all live cat outcomes.

RTF is a legitimate outcome for community (feral) cats who cannot be homed. It is also the quickest way to move a cat out of the shelter and count it as a live outcome. The Report does not say how many of the 866 were unsocialized community cats and how many were friendly, adoptable cats, what criteria were used to make that distinction, or how the 866 relates to its reported 689 Spay-Neuter-Return and 2,000 Trap-Neuter-Return surgeries. Without that breakdown no one can tell whether the cat rate reflects cats being homed or cats being returned to the street.

2.5 “Added 48 new Rescue Partners”
Absent a list of those organizations and the number and species of animals each one has pulled, this claim cannot be verified. Rescue transfers are a major component of the live outcomes behind the Live Release Rate, yet rescues have been systematically disenfranchised.

Are these new partners actually pulling animals? How many of the new 48 have pulled even one? What share of the dogs and cats going to rescue is pulled by each partner, and how concentrated is it among a handful of organizations?
For example, in the first six months of 2026, just 10 cat rescues pulled 402 cats. This is an alarmingly narrow group doing much of the heavy lifting for the shelter when it comes to live outcomes. Just four years ago, in FY 2021-22, the top 20 cat rescue partners pulled 2,252 cats.

2.6 The regional comparison
Chart 3 and the “Agency Comparison” gives no sources, time periods or methods. Where we could check them, they do not hold up:
• San Francisco Animal Care & Control publishes a single combined dog-and-cat Live Release Rate (88% for FY 2024-25), not the identical 89% for each species shown in Chart 3.
• Oakland Animal Services publishes raw counts through 2023 on its statistics page and, in our search, no current Live Release Rate. We could not trace the Report’s 95% (dogs), 92% (cats) or 6% euthanasia figures to any source.
• Contra Costa Animal Services is the closest match, but its published 2026 figures are calendar year-to-date, not the fiscal year used in the Report. • The Report cites “Best Friends’ data” without identifying it. Shelters also treat owner-requested euthanasia, RTF and transfers differently, so rates are not comparable unless recalculated on a common basis. The Report does not do that.

The Report also states that San Francisco Animal Care & Control “does not accept kittens under four weeks of age.” SFACC’s own website tells finders of bottle-baby kittens to call or email to schedule an intake appointment (sfanimalcare.org/how-to-care-for-foster-kittens). At a minimum, the Report’s description of SFACC’s practice is incomplete, yet it is used to excuse San José’s own kitten outcomes. The Report’s claim about Oakland’s kitten intake is likewise unsourced and the Oakland website contradicts the claim made (https://www.oaklandca.gov/Community/Pets-Animals/Foster-a-Pet/Cat-Kitten-Foster-Program).

2.7 Field Services: the numbers do not add up
The Report says Field Services handled 19,065 calls, but its Priority 1, 2 and 3 calls add up to only 11,690. It never explains the missing 7,375 calls (39%). It says the total “includes follow-up calls,” but gives no count of follow-ups or of anything else in the gap. It does not say how many calls went unanswered or uncompleted. It gives response times only for Priority 1 calls, while Rebuttal to ACS 2025-2026 Annual Report – NSE Item (d)2 – Page 6 Priority 2 and 3 calls, which grew by 1,855, get no response or completion data at all. The “completed calls” chart simply repeats the call totals. ACS should provide a breakdown of the 19,065 calls and the number of calls completed and uncompleted in each priority.

2.8 “Strong progress” on the audit
Staff say the audit is complete. There is widespread disagreement with that claim. Audit-related Public Records Act requests remain incomplete, and the City Auditor’s March 2026 status report rested on documents supplied by the shelter “for one point in time” without an onsite follow-up.

A shelter cannot certify its own audit as complete while withholding the records that would let anyone check.

2.9 “Strategic” intake
ACS has moved to strategic/managed intake. It is not clear this is legal. ACS is an open-admission shelter with a mandatory duty to take in the very animals it is turning away. That question is also being taken up in the legal action against the City. The Civil Grand Jury recommended that the City report the number of animals turned away due to capacity limits.

The Report gives no number. Animals turned away at the door appear nowhere in this Report.

For context, it’s important to note that at a Stakeholder’s Meeting in February of 2023 hosted by Deputy City Manager Angel Rios, the former ACS deputy director Jay Terrado was “ordered” by Mr. Rios to start “logging” the animals that were being turned away by the shelter. Former NSE councilmember Magdalena Carrasco also made a similar suggestion at the December 2022 NSE Meeting to gain a better idea as to whether the shelter was “dodging” its responsibilities to the community. It is concerning that these two “directives” have never been complied with.

Likewise under Monica Wylie’s direction the shelter recently closed its doors to the public, in favor of a previously tried and failed post-COVID experiment - “concierge adoptions”. This results in no eyes on the animal; it is not necessarily legal and we have already witnessed a drop in adoptions as a result. Adoptions during the month of September 2026 were 57 animals less than the average of the three previous years for the month of September. August is not a fair comparison given that August was the Annual Clear Our Shelter month.

2.10 Other claims in the Background section
Realignment to PRNS. The Report presents this move as a better “fit.” It does not mention that the move was made at least in part because the shelter, under Public Works and specifically Matt Loesch, the Public Works Director, has been on a long and well-documented downward trajectory. A new reporting line does not erase that record.

Exotic, wild and farm animals. The Report says these animals go to rescue partners. As recently as 2024, wildlife went to the Wildlife Center of Silicon Valley under a contract. ACS should clarify whether that contract is still in place and where wildlife now goes.

2.11 Dog playgroups: what the Report leaves out
Dog outcomes are a bright spot in this Report, and it is no accident. The herculean efforts of volunteers getting large numbers of dogs out of the kennels is a primary factor. Daily dog playgroups likewise are a nationally recognized best practice with a documented record of improving Live Release Rates. Beginning in July 2022, the ACS playgroup program was built from scratch by Partners in Animal Care & Compassion (PACC) and shelter volunteers. The Rebuttal to ACS 2025-2026 Annual Report – NSE Item (d)2 – Page 7 Report fails to mention that playgroups are now in a steep decline1 . Volunteer-tracked data
show Saturday playgroups falling from about 50 dogs a week (January–October 2025) to about 19 (June–August 2026), a 62% drop. Sunday playgroups fell about 84%, from about 58 dogs to about 9, after the staff member running playgroups on their own volunteer time was let go in January 2026. Over the same period the number of eligible dogs in the shelter fell only 12–17%, so far fewer dogs are getting out to play overall. This decline has occurred since Deputy Director Monica Wylie took over in October 2025. The Report also does not mention the ban on taking lifesaving photos and videos for which two volunteers, instrumental to playgroups, were fired. A shelter that celebrates its dog Live Release Rate while dismantling the programs, and retaliating against the people behind it, is telling of the shelter’s culture.

2.12 Volunteers and community engagement
Volunteers. The Report cites 233 active volunteers with no prior-year figure, so no one can tell whether the program grew or shrank. Recently 121 volunteers, some at real risk of retaliation, signed an Open Letter that was ignored by everyone in shelter and city leadership. This remains unacceptable and the requests in that letter still stand. Volunteers are in short supply. What is ACS doing about the backlog of volunteer applications, and about a process that is onerous and unwelcoming?
Community Forums. Forums are meant to let the community ask questions, raise concerns and offer input for the shelter’s consideration. The forums held so far have been poorly communicated, tightly scripted, failing to match the well informed audience of fosters, volunteers, rescue partners, and even medical professionals. One was canceled because of what we now know was an unnecessary closure of the shelter (a Fire Watch), and the next was devoted to wildlife as presented by two high school students, hardly an opportunity to address shelter concerns. Counting three forums as an accomplishment does not meet the standard the Report sets for itself. There has been little to no good faith effort by Deputy Director Wylie to hold these meetings in the spirit that NSE Chairman Ortiz had ordered at the December 2025 NSE Meeting.

3. Fiscal Year 2026-27 Goals
“Fully process and track all EIH dogs and cats.” This is an admission that some are not currently processed and tracked. The Report cites about 650 animals across 21 Emergency Interim Housing sites. What is not being processed and tracked today, how many animals does that cover, and what happens to them in the meantime?
“Grow volunteer program, including foster volunteers.” Does growth also imply support? A goal to grow the volunteer program is not a plan to support it. ACS should state what training, communication and application-process changes will accompany it. “Form a Community Advisory Group by the end of the calendar year.” The Civil Grand Jury recommended a community advisory group, with residents from each Council district and each contract city, by December 31, 2026. This goal is compliance, not initiative. ACS must answer how members will be chosen, how the group’s integrity will be ensured, how it will inform shelter decisions, and how it can hold the shelter accountable. Or will the shelter simply be able to ignore the group’s input as it did during a handful of Stakeholder’s Meetings hosted by Angel Rios in 2023, as it has ignored all other input to date? 1San José Shelter: Dog Playgroups on a Downward Trajectory Under New Leadership (September 2026; volunteer-tracked weekly participation data).

Rebuttal to ACS 2025-2026 Annual Report – NSE Item (d)2 – Page 8 Goals the Report should have included:
• Reduce staff turnover by providing comprehensive training, supports and improved communication. Metric: comparative turnover rates.
• Demonstrate healthier relationships with volunteers and the rescue community. Metric:
annual survey and satisfaction rates.
• Reverse the decline of dog playgroups by making good on the initial commitment to scale, through more volunteers or the addition of staff-run playgroups. Metric: comparative data on the number of dogs getting out in playgroups.
• Restore the cat Live Release Rate to its historical level of about 90%. Metric: the cat Live Release Rate calculated and published on the Asilomar form.

4. What ACS Must Provide Before This Report Can Be Accepted

1. The complete FY 2025-26 Asilomar Report in the same format as FY 2024-25, including owner-requested euthanasia (line R) and animals that died or were lost in care (lines U and U1), and the calculations behind the stated 95%, 80%, 86.22% and 14% figures.

2. The number of owner-requested euthanasias of animals classified as Unhealthy and Untreatable, by species, the written criteria for that classification, who makes it, and how it is audited.

3. A breakdown of the 2,710 “Rescues/Transfer” figure into rescue partners and other transfers, with annual figures from FY 2020-21 through FY 2025-26.

4. The names of the 48 new rescue partners, the number and species of animals each has pulled, and the share of rescued dogs and cats pulled by each.

5. For the 866 Return To Field cats: the number that were unsocialized community cats versus friendly or adoptable cats, the criteria used to determine the distinction, and how the figure relates to Spay Neuter Return and Trap Neuter Return counts.

6. A Return To Owner rate based on stray intake.

7. The sources, time periods and calculations for every comparison shelter in Chart 3, and the “Best Friends” data cited.

8. A breakdown of the 19,065 field calls, the number completed and uncompleted by priority, and response times for Priority 2 and 3 calls.

9. Post-surgical mortality data.

10. The number of animals turned away due to capacity, by species and month.

11. Prior-year volunteer numbers, the number of backlogged volunteer applications, staff turnover rates, and any volunteer or rescue-partner satisfaction surveys.

12. Complete responses to all outstanding audit-related Public Records Act requests, and documentation supporting the claim that audit recommendations are implemented.

13. The Community Advisory Group charter: selection process, membership, role, and accountability mechanisms.

Rebuttal to ACS 2025-2026 Annual Report – NSE Item (d)2 – Page 9

5. Conclusion
A report to this Committee must let the Committee check its claims. This one does not.

The performance rates cannot be reproduced without information it withholds, its comparisons are unsourced, and its own numbers show declines that are not addressed. The dog outcomes, supported by playgroups and volunteers, show what this shelter can do when it invests in what works.

We ask the Committee to decline to accept the Report and to direct ACS to complete it and resubmit it with the documents listed in Section 4.

NSE Councilmembers who vote to accept this report as it stands, will be doing so with full knowledge of what it leaves out.

Attachments:

Attachment A - ACS Asilomar Report FY 2024-25
Attachment B - San José Animal Partners Mock Asilomar Report FY 2025-26 (analysis using the Report’s own figures).

Rebuttal to ACS 2025-2026 Annual Report – NSE Item (d)2 – Page 10 7/1/2024 - 6/30/2025

SAN JOSE ANIMAL CARE & SERVICES
Asilomar Report
A. Beginning Population on 7/1/2024
Dog Puppy Cat Kitten Other Total
Total 391 24 169 692 161 1,437
*Population includes animals taken in by ACS and located both onsite at the shetler and offsite, including animals in foster and animals at secondary sites or emergency vet. Animals may change location over the course of their stay. Found animals that remain under the care of the finder are excluded.

B. From the Public
Dog Puppy Cat Kitten Other Total
Healthy 1,500 273 1,142 1,141 231 4,287
Treatable-Rehabilitatable 623 76 854 1,281 122 2,956
Treatable-Manageable 139 2 529 51 31 752
Unhealthy & Untreatable 273 91 935 1,095 79 2,473
Total 2,535 442 3,460 3,568 463 10,468
Intakes
C. Incoming Transfers from Organizations within Community/Coalition Dog Puppy Cat Kitten Other Total
Healthy 23 0 4 2 3 32
Treatable-Rehabilitatable 13 0 1 3 2 19
Treatable-Manageable 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unhealthy & Untreatable 1 0 3 4 0 8
Total 37 0 8 9 5 59
D. Incoming Transfers from Organizations outside Community/Coalition N/A
E. Intakes from Owners Requesting Euthanasia
Dog Puppy Cat Kitten Other Total
Healthy 12 2 0 0 0 14
Treatable-Rehabilitatable 17 1 4 0 2 24
Treatable-Manageable 6 0 1 0 0 7
Unhealthy & Untreatable 472 8 124 2 11 617
Total 507 11 129 2 13 662
Intake Totals
Dog Puppy Cat Kitten Other Total
3,079
472
2,607
453
8 445
3,597
124
3,473
3,579
2 3,577
481
11 470
11,189
617
10,572
F. Total Intake [B + C + D + E]
G. Owner Requested Euthanasia
(Unhealthy & Untreatable Only)
H. Adjusted Total Intake [F - G]

1. Sources: ACS annual report memo to NSE Committee dated 9/30/2026 (Chart 1 intake, Chart 2 outcomes, KPIs, Chart 3). Layout and formula follow ACS's FY 2024-25 Asilomar Report form.

2. Asilomar rate = (I+J+K+L) ÷ T, where T = live outcomes + adjusted euthanasia (Q – R). Owner-requested euthanasia of unhealthy & untreatable animals (R) and animals that died or were lost in care (U, U1) are not in the rate.

3. The memo's 'Rescues/Transfer' (J+K) and 'RTF' lines are entered as reported. The FY24-25 form has no RTF line, so ACS must say where RTF cats are reported. If RTF were left out, the live total and rate would be lower.

4. Rows 'implied by memo rate' back-calculate what R would need to be for the memo's rounded rates to be correct. They are a consistency check, not ACS's reported figures.

To: Neighborhood Services and Education Committee (“NSE”) From: Dinah Hayse
Date: October 7, 2026
Subject: Analysis and Recommendations Regarding the San José Animal Care & Services FY2025- 2026 Annual Report
Summary
I appreciate the work of San José Animal Care & Services staff and volunteers and recognize the many challenges the shelter faces. I also greatly appreciate the City's continued investment in Animal Services and spay and neuter. However, the FY2025-2026 Annual Report leaves out an important part of the story: how much need in the community is ACS not meeting? The report highlights increases in TNR, adoptions, live outcomes, and other services, which is important to recognize. But knowing how many animals ACS served does not tell us how many animals and residents needed help but could not get it.

This is especially concerning because the City's investment in Animal Services has increased, as has medical staffing, while access to services for healthy stray cats has again been reduced. These are the cats most directly responsible for producing more kittens and, ultimately, more shelter and rescue demand.

When we do not provide timely access to spay/neuter and TNR, the problem does not go away. It grows exponentially. And that growth is increasingly being absorbed by San José residents, volunteers, foster homes, and rescue organizations.

Rescues have not stopped supporting San José animals. They continue to take animals directly from the community, often because the community cannot access services through the shelter. Rescues are simply overwhelmed by the volume of need outside the shelter walls.

Taxpayers have provided the City with additional resources for Animal Services. Those resources should translate into sustained access to prevention services.

Increased Resources Should Increase Access to Prevention The City has increased funding for Animal Services and increased medical staffing. With that additional funding, we should see a sustained increase in services and specifically an increase in access to spay/neuter and TNR. Instead, access for healthy stray cats has again been reduced. This is concerning because healthy stray cats are not simply another category of shelter population.

Unaltered community cats are producing the kittens who will eventually need shelter, rescue, foster, or community care. Leaving the healthy cats on the street to reproduce makes the problem worse.

When we fail to sterilize those cats today, we create more animals who need help tomorrow.

The expectation when the community advocated for increased funding was not simply that ACS would perform somewhat more surgeries than the year before. The expectation was that increased resources would create reliable, sustained access to prevention services for the community.

That access should not have to be repeatedly fought for by residents, only to be reduced or removed when shelter management changes priorities.

An Increase in TNR Does Not Demonstrate Need Is Being Met The report highlights an increase in TNR surgeries. That sounds positive, but it does not answer the most important question: Was it enough?
What is the backlog of requests for appointments? How many months are community members waiting for appointments? How many TNR requests were received? How many appointments were available? How many appointments went unfilled? How many people could not get an appointment? How many cats were turned away because there was not enough capacity? How many people gave up and stopped trying to navigate a process that thought it was reasonable for them to line up at 3 am to wait in line for an appointment?
Without that information, we cannot know whether a 13% increase represents meaningful progress or simply a small increase from a level that was already painfully inadequate.

It is also important to recognize that the recent increase in spay/neuter was not primarily the result of a medical department-led initiative. It came largely because the community and advocates pushed hard for these services and continued to insist that they be maintained, expanded, and prioritized.

Prevention should not depend on residents repeatedly fighting for access to a service that taxpayers are already funding.

Prevention Costs Less Than Caring for the Kittens We Fail to Prevent There is also a clear financial argument for prevention. The cost of a TNR surgery is far less than the cost of caring for an underage kitten once that kitten enters the shelter or rescue system.

A relatively small investment in spaying one healthy community cat can prevent multiple future litters and the costs that come with them, including medical care, food, foster care, supplies, staff time, and placement.

Prevention is not just better for the animals. It is a much more cost-effective way to manage public resources. Every time access to TNR is restricted, we create future shelter and rescue costs that could have been prevented for a fraction of the price.

Community and Rescues Are Absorbing the Unmet Need
When shelter capacity for intake or prevention is limited, the need does not disappear. The burden simply shifts to someone else.

Residents trap, transport, and now hold cats overnight. Volunteers spend their own time and money helping neighbors. Foster homes take in kittens. Rescues provide medical care and placement.

Community veterinarians and clinics also step in to fill the gaps.

It is important to be clear that rescues have not stopped supporting the animals of San José or the shelter. They continue to take animals directly from the community, including animals who cannot access ACS services, and provide foster care, medical care, and placement.

But those animals are not counted in ACS's shelter intake or outcome data. Neither are the many animals helped directly by residents, volunteers, fosters, community clinics, and other organizations.

As a result, ACS's data represents only a small portion of the animals in need and the animals being helped in San José. A decrease in shelter intake does not necessarily mean fewer animals need help.

It may simply mean more animals are being cared for outside the shelter.

This matters because rescues have limited capacity and even more limited financial resources. They are already overwhelmed by the number of animals coming directly from the community. The fact that a rescue takes an animal does not mean the need has been met. It means someone else has stepped in to meet it.

And the problem grows exponentially. One unaltered female cat can produce multiple litters, and those kittens can go on to reproduce. If we do not address the source through accessible spay/neuter and TNR, the number of animals needing help, and the burden placed on residents, volunteers, fosters, and rescues, will continue to grow.

If the City wants to understand the true scope of animal need in San José, it cannot look only at the animals that enter the shelter. It must also account for the animals and families who need help but are being served elsewhere or not served because ACS cannot meet the demand.

Reduced Intake Is Not a Positive Measure When Intake Is Restricted The report presents reduced shelter intake as a positive outcome. But intake is not an accurate benchmark for a shelter that does not provide open intake to its community.

If healthy animals are turned away or deferred because of capacity, they are not counted in the shelter's intake numbers. The need still exists. The animal simply remains outside the shelter.

This makes comparisons to other shelters less useful when those facilities also do not meet the full demand in their communities.

A lower intake number does not mean there are fewer animals who need help. It just means fewer animals received help. Restricted intake is not evidence that community demand has declined.

The Historical Picture Tells a Different Story
The report uses a relatively short historical window that makes the recent increase in spay/neuter appear more significant. If we look only at the most recent year or two, the numbers can show a positive increase. But if we look further back, ACS is still far behind the level of intake and spay/neuter services it was previously able to provide, even with increased resources.

Council should see the full historical picture rather than only the years that produce the most favorable comparison.

At a minimum, ACS should report ten years of:
• Shelter intake
• TNR and SNR surgeries
• Owned Pet Spay/neuter surgeries
• Kitten intake.
• Healthy animal intake.
• Animals turned away or deferred
• Veterinary and medical staffing
• Animal Services budget and resources
This would allow Council to see whether the City is actually expanding services or simply recovering a portion of the capacity it once had.

We Need to Understand Why Animals Are Entering the System The report discusses broad trends affecting animal homelessness, but it does not provide enough local information about why animals are entering San José's shelter system.

Council should have data on the major causes of intake, including:
• Owner surrender because of veterinary or other costs
• Housing insecurity
• Lost and stray animals
• Abandonment
• Medical and behavioral issues
• Community cat and kitten populations
• Lack of access to affordable spay/neuter
• Lack of access to basic veterinary care
• Backyard breeders
Different problems require different solutions. If families are surrendering animals because they cannot afford veterinary care, additional shelter capacity does not solve the underlying problem.

If kittens and community cats are entering because there is not enough access to spay/neuter, increasing adoptions does not solve the underlying problem either. We need to prevent animals from needing the shelter whenever possible.

Recommendations
I request NSE to direct ACS to clarify and report, at a minimum:

1. Measure and report unmet community demand
For every major service, report not only how many animals were served, but how many residents and animals sought help and could not access it.

2. Establish a sustained TNR and Spay/Neuter goal
The goal should be based on community need, not simply on whether ACS exceeds the previous year's number. TNR services four or five days a week could mean just one surgery a day. A goal of 50 surgeries a day would be a specific, measurable goal.

3. Track TNR demand and capacity
Report requests received, appointments available, surgeries completed, cats turned away, people unable to obtain appointments, waitlist volume, wait times, and the capacity of each surgery suite.

4. Provide historical data
Report at least ten years of intake, TNR, spay/neuter, kitten intake, staffing, and budget data so Council can evaluate actual long-term progress.

5. Track animals turned away or deferred
Healthy animals and other animals who cannot be accepted should not disappear from the City's measurement of demand.

6. Compare prevention costs with the cost of the animals we fail to prevent The City should evaluate the cost of TNR and spay/neuter against the cost of caring for the kittens and other animals that result when prevention is not available.

7. Make prevention a consistent shelter priority
Access to TNR and spay/neuter should not depend on repeated community advocacy or be reduced whenever other operational priorities arise.

8. Report to NSE quarterly
Council should receive regular updates on demand, capacity, services provided, and unmet need, rather than relying primarily on an annual report.

Conclusion
Again, I greatly appreciate the work of San José Animal Care & Services, the staff and the volunteers.

But the City's responsibility should not be measured only by how many animals the shelter processed.

We need to ask whether the City is doing enough to prevent those animals from needing the shelter in the first place.

The City has increased funding and medical resources. The community's reasonable expectation is that those investments will result in more consistent and reliable access to services and prevention, particularly TNR and spay/neuter.

An increase in TNR is positive, but it does not tell us if we are meeting demand. Reduced intake may be encouraging, but it does not tell us whether fewer animals need help or whether fewer animals are being accepted.

And rescues continuing to take animals directly from the community does not mean the system is working. It means residents and nonprofits are stepping in when public services are not available. We cannot solve an exponential population problem by measuring only the animals we managed to serve.

We need to turn off the faucet rather than continually mop up the water. That means investing in prevention, measuring unmet demand, looking honestly at the historical data, and making sure the resources provided by San José taxpayers translate into sustained access to spay/neuter and TNR.

The question for Council should not simply be, “Did ACS do more this year?” It should be, “Did ACS do enough to meet the need, and if not, what will it take to close the gap?” -Dinah Hayse