Responses to 2025 Final Report*

AVAS's lack of providing posted lists of all housed animals and euthanasia lists leads to higher euthanasia rates and lower adoption rates.. The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding above. AVAS posts an "Urgent List" and this list includes both adoptable and unadoptable animals, along with the animals' pictures, vastly improving outcomes and increasing the odds of saving the lives of our animal friends. Moreover, The "Urgent List" list is very easy to understand and AVAS has not received any negative feedback from purchasers, potential purchasers, volunteers, or other organizations that would lead the Town to believe it is confusing.

AVAS's Rescue Shelter Liason's inability to send/receive texts hinder timely and effective interacting with rescue agencies and networkers.. The respondent disagrees partially with the finding above. The AVAS team currently has an effective method of communication that serves the needs of the Liaison and Rescue and Rescues Team. Having multiple methods of communication only duplicates efforts, demanding additional time and effort that could otherwise be spent saving the lives of our animal friends.

Because AVAS does not vaccinate all animals immediately upon intake, the spread of disease in the shelter contributes to more euthanasia of sick animals, and the shelter being closed for periods of time. The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding above. In May 2025, AVAS purchased a shield to use when vaccinating cats. Thus, the premise that the Town is not vaccinating animals that are "too difficult to handle" is not true because efforts, like the shield, have been made to provide vaccination. Additionally, and despite rare instances where infection spreads due to extenuating and unforeseen circumstances, AVAS has a track record of successful illness prevention and a vaccination process in place that provides the necessary protections against regular outbreaks.

AVAS' failure to have the cats' areas "out of earshot of the barking dogs has caused the cats to exhibit some of the characteristics of feral cats and has resulted in increased euthanasia rates. L Fig. The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding above. YTUD ... First, Food and Agricultural Code Section 31752.5(a) discusses cat temperaments. Next, Section 31752.5(b) defines a "feral cat." A feral cat is "... is defined as a cat without owner identification of any kind whose usual and consistent temperament is extreme fear and resistance to contact with people. A feral cat is totally unsocialized to people." Lastly, Section 31752.5(c) discusses that "Notwithstanding Section 31752, if a feral cat has not been reclaimed by its owner or caretaker within the first three days of the required holding period, animal shelter personnel qualified to verify the temperament of the animal shall verify whether it is feral or tame by using a standardized protocol. If the cat is determined to be docile or a frightened or difficult tame cat, the cat shall be held for the entire required holding period specified in Section 31752. If the cat is determined to be truly feral, the cat may be euthanized or relinquished to a nonprofit, as defined in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, animal adoption organization that agrees to the spaying or neutering of the cat if it has not already been spayed or neutered. In addition to any required spay or neuter deposit, the animal shelter, at its discretion, may assess a fee, not to exceed the standard adoption fee, for the animal released." Thus, if a feral cat has not been reclaimed by its owner or caretaker and has been determined to be a "feral cat" by a standardized protocol, the cat may be euthanized without waiting the entire six (6) days required by Section 31752(a). Please note, Section 31752 also has exceptions to the general rule of a six (6) day holding period. Moreover, AVAS requires specific case numbers to review and reply to this finding. Any animal that was euthanized prior to the mandated holding period of four (4) days (ninety- six (96) hours) was either irremediably suffering, requested by the animal's owner, or had behavioral issues. Once again, AVAS cannot respond unless a specific case number is presented to review and reply. The "standardized protocol" serves to deter and limit discretionary evaluations of whether a cat is "feral" or not. Second, soundproofing is cost prohibitive and infeasible. However, AVAS will look into feasible noise reduction efforts.

AVAS's lack of the use of color-coded kennel cards has resulted in delays in employees and adopters knowing which animals are immediately adoptable. The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding above. This finding is unsubstantiated. No comparison metrics have been presented. AVAS strives to do the best it can with the resources it has under the circumstances that arise. AVAS acknowledges there are methods, such as color-coded kennels, that may speed up certain processes. However, such methods do not guarantee an improved experience and animal outcomes and require funds that make it prohibitively costly. Specifically, color- coded kennels requires a software database that is operationally unnecessary and too costly to implement.

AVAS does not employ a Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist, which causes a lack of proper assessment of the animals for adoption and euthanasia possibilities. The respondent disagrees partially with the finding above. At this time, AVAS does not have a position titled Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist but does employ an Animal Behaviorist who possesses a certificate under another job description.

AVAS has minimally worked with other animal entities and businesses in the local area to plan for community adoption events and as a result fewer animals have been adopted. The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding above. AVAS has and continues to do off-site adoption events as resources permit. AVAS will continue to seek opportunities to increase the number of events as time, personnel, partnerships, and financial resources permit

AVAS's failure to use squeeze cages for vaccinating or euthanizing animals, such as feral cats, causes a higher probability of injury and disease spread. The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding above. The product is called Cat/Small Animal Shield.

AVAS's failure to update their Policies and Procedures Manual (2014), in a more timely manner causes the current manual to be outdated, incorrect, and incomplete. The respondent disagrees partially with the finding above. AVAS is currently in the process of updating its Policies and Procedures Manual. While the Policies and Procedures Manual may be slightly outdated, it is substantially adequate and staff may always request clarification when needed.

Opening AVAS for a sixth day of the week for rescue groups only, will give more time for rescue of the animals, thereby decreasing euthanasia. The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding above. The finding incorrectly assumes that rescues are consistent and that there is sufficient funding to open. Both underlying assumptions are wrong. Lastly and more importantly, the Town's priority continues to be the adoption of pets to loving forever homes. AVAS's practice of using one or two employees in deciding the fate of an animal causes

higher employee stress, greater euthanasia rates and a narrowed view of the animal's behavior. The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding above. Euthanasia rates were historically much higher previously due to high intake numbers and relatively low corresponding adoption numbers resulting from a contract with San Bernardino County. Inadequate funding and an unsustainable contract resulted in the Town having one of the largest and worst funded shelters in the region. The unfortunate consequence was that AVAS was then tagged with a high euthanasia rate. Subsequently, euthanasia rates have dropped significantly since AVAS terminated its contract with the County. Furthermore, the grand jury has not provided any substantiating data, documents, or evidence that employees suffered higher levels of stress, euthanasia rates have increased, or that the employees developed or had a narrowed view of the animals' behavior. For instance, as mentioned in F4, there is a standardized procedure for determining whether a cat is feral or not. Such standardized procedures alleviate employee stress and lead to more uniform decisions on whether an animal will be euthanized. However, AVAS recognizes the toll of compassion fatigue in employees and is ever vigilant in its efforts to protect its employees. AVAS is agreeable to using more employees should euthanasia rates increase and if economically feasible.

AVAS' lack of a strong volunteer program managed by a full-time employee and with many adult/student volunteers, causes less hands-on care and socialization for the animals. The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding above. First, the grand jury has no data or substantiating evidence to support this claim. Second, AVAS does not believe that the current volunteer programs, community events, or off-site events lack hands-on care and socialization for the animals. Third, AVAS does not believe that a full-time employee that manages a volunteer program will aid in the increase of hands-on care and socialization for the animals. Lastly, AVAS wishes to clarify and emphasize that the current volunteer programs, community events, or off-site events are successful and have led to an increase in adoption rates. AVAS's lack of ongoing access to a professional grant writer causes less monetary support

for the shelter. The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding above. AVAS management applies for grants and has access to Town grant writers.

Lack of offering discounted rates for certain adopters causes a decrease in adoptions. The respondent disagrees partially with the finding above. While AVAS can empathize that, for some individuals, money is an obstacle to adopting an animal from the shelter, the adoption fees are set to a reasonable price that aids in keeping AVAS sustainable. Moreover, AVAS strives to help the animals find safe homes and an adoption fee serves as a step in ensuring that the purchaser can provide a safe, stable home and will be able to pay for appropriate food, shelter, and medical care on an ongoing basis.

The lack of an in-house veterinarian dedicated to AVAS, and an in-shelter medical/surgery center in AVAS has caused a decrease in neutering surgeries and other medical procedures. The respondent disagrees partially with the finding above. While there is no doubt that animal care will be improved with the hiring of a veterinarian, recruiting and employing a veterinarian is extremely cost prohibitive and not contemplated in previous years' or this year's budget. RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS