Palo Alto on Monday reaffirmed its commitment to remaining with Pets In Need as the city’s pet service provider, even as some City Council members urged a broad reevaluation of the troubled partnership.
The council voted 6-1, with council member Greg Tanaka dissenting, to approve a term sheet with Pets In Need for a new five-year agreement, an outcome that was virtually predetermined by its vote in June.
But in a surprising twist that caught city staff and Pets In Need leaders off guard, three council members proposed Monday that the city re-evaluate whether the Palo Alto shelter really needs to provide adoption services.
The idea was championed by board member Vicki Veenker, who toured the Humane Society Silicon Valley’s Milpitas facility earlier in the day with board member Pat Burt. Both said they came away impressed — so much so that they began to wonder whether Palo Alto might be better off outsourcing adoption services to another organization.
Palo Alto launched a partnership with Pets In Need, a Redwood City-based nonprofit known as a “no-kill” shelter, in 2019. But that relationship soured two years later, when Pets In Need accused the city of going back on its commitments. his commitment to improving the shelter and found himself on the defensive after seven puppies died in a Pets In Need van while being transported from Central Valley.
It hit rock bottom in November 2021, when the nonprofit invoked a clause in the agreement allowing it to end its partnership within a year.
The divorce never materialized. The executive director of Pets In Needs has resigned and new management has committed to working with Palo Alto on a new agreement. Both sides have since signed several short-term extensions. Meanwhile, Pets In Need takes care of Conflicts between its Palo Alto and Redwood City staff and pushing back against allegations of increased euthanasia at the shelter — claims its leaders have vehemently denied.
Under terms the council approved Monday, the city’s annual payment to Pets In Need would drop from $773,580 to $1.37 million and the city would commit to at least $2.5 million in major improvements at the shelter.
Although Veenker supported the new contract, she also proposed that the city simultaneously begin evaluating the types of services the local animal shelter should offer.
“What should we replicate and what shouldn’t we do? It depends on dollars, it depends on our responsibility to our residents and it depends on the preferences of our residents. I think all of that should be looked at,” Veenker said .
Burt agreed and suggested that residents could fairly easily go to another nearby shelter — like the Pets In Need adoption center in Redwood City or the Humane Society Silicon Valley — to receive adoption services.
“Should we offer adoption services? Are we the best at this? » asked Burt.
The tenor of the discussion seemed to surprise both City Manager Ed Shikada and Pets In Need Executive Director Laura Toller Gardner, who said earlier in the evening that the nonprofit was enthusiastic about idea of moving forward with the agreement and charting a positive path forward.
But his enthusiasm seemed to wane after Veenker and Burt suggested that adoption might not be part of the shelter’s long-term future.
Toller Gardner called the existing system a “great hybrid” because it allows Pets In Need to move animals between its two shelters to meet the needs of the communities and animals.
“Honestly, not being able to do that would be a significant obstacle and it would have to be something that we would have to look at very seriously to understand the impacts of this – not only on Palo Alto but on our 60-year legacy in Redwood City and all of our donors, volunteers and supporters out there,” Toller Gardner said.
Removing adoption services from the Palo Alto shelter would go against the shelter’s best practices, she said. It could also discourage some Palo Alto residents from adopting.
“The travel, the inability to do that in their community could actually be a barrier to adoption,” she said.
Shikada and Kristen O’Kane, director of the Department of Community Services, both observed that the idea of reevaluating adoption services would run counter to the direction previously given by the board.
“I think we’re potentially changing the scope in a way where it’s no longer interesting for them to be a partner,” Shikada said of Pets In Need. “I would advise against doing that at this point, entering into a multi-year deal.”
One thing the council was reluctant to revisit was the idea of allowing Pets In Need to implement a “trap/neuter/return” (TNR) policy for feral cats. Just like in previous meetings, council members heard from a host of animal advocates who say such a policy is the most effective and humane way to control the feral cat population.
They also heard from conservationists and members of the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society who strongly oppose TNR and say the released cats pose a danger to birds and other sensitive wildlife.
Wendy Eilers, who participated in a Stanford University campaign to reduce the feral cat population on campus, was among the supporters of TNR, which she called “the only humane cat that can reduce the population of homeless cats in our communities.
The board’s decision to ban TNR will only result in “more breeding cats, more kittens for whom there are no homes and more suffering,” she said.
“You cannot have a policy that is humane and reflects best animal control practices that does not allow feral cats to return to the colony,” Eilers said. “A ban on returning to the colony means the slaughter of animals at the shelter.”
Audubon Society volunteer Rani Fischer opposed TNR and said feral cats prey on birds and other species.
“TNR is particularly harmful to wildlife that live and breed on the ground,” she said. “They are preyed upon by feral cats, from baby rabbits to ducklings, burrowing owls and endangered species including the salt marsh harvest mouse and Ridgway’s rail.”
Just as in the past, the council sided with the Audubon Society and agreed to maintain the current ban on TNR. However, its list of conditions includes language calling on Pets In Need and the city to “work together to develop a transparent and humane feral cat program, reflecting municipal best practices and the impact on public health and wildlife, and which maintains the current practice that PIN does not release feral cats or cause their release.
Toller Gardner said Pets In Need hopes to be able to work with the city and community advocates to “come up with something that is positive for the birds, for the wildlife and for the cats in the community.”
“Because we all want, ultimately, the same thing. We want there to be a lot fewer community cats,” Toller Gardner said.
While most of the public comments were about TNR, Animal Control Manager Jeannette Washington focused on the broader question of whether Pets In Need is a good fit for the city and whether the new contract is a good deal.
She suggested that Pets In Need, as a rescue organization, is not well suited to handle all the functions of a municipal shelter and lamented that the city had not further explored the idea of bringing back a internal model of animal services.
“The current proposed contract calls for more money and fewer services,” Washington said.
Tanaka was also not enthusiastic about the new deal and cited the increasing cost of the Pets In Need contract. He also said he would be willing to consider cutting some local services, including adoption, and outsourcing them. Palo Alto can, for example, do what Mountain View did and explore a partnership with the Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority, which has a shelter in Santa Clara. Local residents would be willing to make that trip for adoption, he said.
“It’s not like they have to go to Timbuktu or all the way to San Francisco,” Tanaka said.
The council’s vote to approve the term sheet Monday clears the way for staff to draft a new five-year contract, which will return to council for formal approval later this year.