Loading...
WC CWF Health District Board Minutes - 02/24/2012WICHITA FALLS - WICHITA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH BOARD MINUTES February 24, 2012 Wichita Falls- Wichita County Public Health District 1700 Third Street - Parker Conference Room Wichita Falls, Texas MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Sutton, M.D., Chair Robin Moreno, M.T., Secretary Lauren Jansen, Ph.D. Clay Clark, D.V.M. Tracy Hill, D.D.S. MEMBERS ABSENCE UNEXCUSED: David Carlston, Ph. D. Lou Kreidler, R.N., B.S.N. Amy K. Fagan, M.S.N. Not Present Kevin Hugman Dorothy Roberts -Burns Ray Gonzalez Board Members I Director of Health Assistant Director of Health Health Authority Assistant City Manager Council Liaison County Commissioner I. CALL TO ORDER & INTRODUCTIONS Chair Dr. Sutton called the Board of Health meeting to order at 12:00 pm after a quorum of members was attained. II. APPROVAL OF JANUARY MEETING MINUTES AND ABSENCES Dr. Sutton called for the review and approval of minutes from the last meeting held on January 27, 2011. Dr. Jansen introduced a motion to approve the minutes as presented and Dr. Hill seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. At this time it was noted the unexcused absence of Dr. Carlson. 111. BOARD APPOINTMENT Scott Plowman appointed as a Health Board member for the Restaurant Association was sworn in by Notary, Janice Flores, to fill the vacancy left by Bryan Press. IV. RE- ELECTION OF BOARD OFFICERS Robin Moreno, M.T. introduced a motion to nominate Richard Sutton, M.D. for Chair and Tracy Hill, D.D.S. seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. ill Richard Sutton, M.D. introduced a motion to nominate Lauren Jansen, Ph.D. for Vice -Chair and Robin Moreno, M.T. seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Richard Sutton, M.D. introduced a motion to nominate Robin Moreno, M.T. for Secretary and Lauren Jansen, Ph.D. seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. V. SPAY AND NEUTER ORDINANCE Lou Kreidler, Director of Health, stated before presentation of the proposed Intact Animal Permit Ordinance that Council requested the Board's review, suggestions, and guidance in a revision of the proposed ordinance. The Animal Services Center (ASC) from opening on February 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011, impounded 2,685 animals and owners or citizens surrendered 1,443 animals; 520 were reclaimed, 153 went to rescue, 727 to the Humane Society, and 2,741 (66.19 %) were euthanized, whch included healthy animals, and litters of puppies and kittens. The proposed Intact Animal Permit Ordinance is as follows: DECREASE EUTHANASIA ❖ Increase reclaim rates though use of: City License, Micro - Chipping, Face Book, Craig's List, Internet Sites. Animal Control Officers that pick up tagged animals first effort is to get the animal back to the owner, same if micro - chipped; scanners are on all the Animal Control trucks. Katrena Mitchell, Animal Services Administrator, would continue to be progressive in the use of Face Book, Craig's List, and Internet sites to find owners of any lost animals. ❖ Increase Humane Society adoptions. The more animals adopted through the Humane Society space would become available for the Humane Society to take in Animal Service Center animals. ❖ Decrease animals coming into the facility with the Intact Animal Permit Ordinance. The intention is to prevent multiple litters of puppies and kittens that would lower the intake at Animal Services Center. REGULATE STERILIZATION ❖ Cities that regulate sterilization of dogs and cats in Texas are Arlington, Dallas, Denton, Fort Worth, Houston, Irving, San Antonio, and Lawton, Oklahoma. PERMITTING The ordinance would require an intact permit for each unsterilized cat or dog over 24 weeks of age living in the City. The following must be met to obtain a permit: ❖ The animal must be current with vaccinations, have a current City License and be micro - chipped. ❖ The owner must be a member of an approved dog or cat club that maintains a code of ethics for breeding, or have completed, at the owner's expense, an approved course on responsible pet ownership. ❖ The owner must apply and pay permit fee annually. In other cities researched the annual permit fee ranged from $45 -$70 dollars. BREEDING ❖ An owner is not allowed to breed their animal unless they possess an intact animal permit ❖ An owner may not allow an animal with an intact permit to have more than one litter during the permit term. 2 SALE, ADOPT, TRANSFER ❖ Cats and dogs must be at least 8 weeks of age and have been vaccinated prior to transfer. ❖ Owners must display the intact permit number in all advertisements for transfer of offspring of a permitted animal and on all sales receipts. ❖ Owners must provide a statement of health. PERMIT DENIAL OR REVOCATION ❖ A person fails to comply with any provision of the animal control chapter. ❖ A person intentionally makes a false statement on the intact animal permit application. Consideration of two approaches follows: 1) To require that all impounded intact animals have an intact permit or a sterilization agreement prior to reclaim (the agreement would give them 30 days to take their animal to the vet of their choice to get the animal sterilized). 2) To require that intact animals within the City limits have an intact permit, with limited exceptions for visiting animals, such as those at the cat show. The present ordinance does not require the animal be sterilized. The proposed ordinance would require sterilization, the agreement would allow 30 days to bring in proof of sterilization or be ticketed. Currently, when Animal Control brings in an animal, upon pick up of the animal the owner is charged $35 for spay /neuter or $40 not spay /neuter, in addition more than one day boarding is $7 per day, and if not current on the rabies vaccine they purchase a rabies voucher to get it done. The Mayor and Council suggested looking at types of incentive programs rather than being punitive. Other suggestions are to set the fee higher for an intact animal then much lower for one fixed, offer a sterilization agreement that would lower the license fee and impound fees could be done the same. The Mayor and Council were not pleased with the proposed ordinance and expressed various concerns including the role of government and increasing fees. A meeting was held with the Animal Shelter Advisory Committee for suggestions. Katrena Mitchell mentioned some of the incentives discussed, such as charging up front then issuing a refund, making the city tag as a refund if opting to spay or neuter, and education /outreach. Responsible pet owners continue to be responsible no matter what is done; the focus is on those who are not responsible. Discussed was a marketing campaign with more education /outreach targeted in certain neighborhoods and school areas where most animals are picked up. Lou Kreidler commented in next years budget, funds will be requested for an education campaign for tags, spay or neuter. Dr. Hill agreed with the incentives to get animals spayed or neutered, but expressed concern with what can be done when the animals basically come from irresponsible breeders. Dr. Jansen asked if breeders register with the Health Department. Lou Kreidler stated currently they do not, but that would change with the proposed ordinance. Kevin Hugman asked what the percentage is of those who obtain city licenses. Katrena Mitchell replied the percentage is approximately 20 %. A lot of it is not being proactive but more reactive when out on calls. We need to work on getting more involvement from the vets to sell the licenses; they see the animal owner more often then Animal Services especially the responsible owners. Kevin Hugman asked with the allowance of one litter per year under the permit in the proposed ordinance how would it be monitored. Lou Kreidler responded the permit number would be required in all advertisements which would be monitored and tracked to indicate more than one litter. Dr. Clark suggested under the Sale, Adopt, Transfer section that cats and dogs must be at least 8 weeks of age and have been vaccinated prior to transfer, that it be more specific then just vaccinated, too young 3 to be vaccinated for rabies, assumption is parvo but there are many vaccines on the market now. Then on the Permit Denial or Revocation how does the revocation work, take the license back. Lou Kreidler responded we do that with other permits whether it's the pet fancier permit, livestock permit when we go out there they do not met the requirements or done something they shouldn't we give them a timeframe to fix and if they don't we can revoke their license. Dr. Clark stated that although he was fundamentally opposed to more government and legislation, the nature of his profession allows him to understand the necessity of an ordinance, and that the proposed ordinance is not inappropriate. Dr. Sutton commented that it seems like a lot of compliance issues, but a legitimate function of government that needs to happen. Lou stated it would be hard to enforce, but none of it is going to be easy. The Board's time and input is appreciated. Once the revision is done on the proposed ordinance it will be brought to the Board before being presented to Council. VI. NEXT MEETING DATE April 27, 2012 VII. ADJOURN Dr. Sutton requested a motion to adjourn. The motion was made by Dr. Jansen and seconded by Dr. Clark. The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 12:45 pm. RECEIVED IN CITY CLERKS OFFICE DATE, 1 — I --'I- BY:-U 1 Richard Sutton, M.D., Chair, Lauren Jansen, Ph.b., or Robin Moreno, M.T., Secretary Public Health Board 2