Loading...
WC CWF Health District Board Minutes - 03/10/2004PLACE: TIME: DATE: WICHITA FALLS - WICHITA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH BOARD Wichita Falls- Wichita County Public Health District 12.15 p.m. March 10, 2004 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: HEALTH DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVES: Susan Strate, M.D. Kathy Sultemeier, D.V.M. Diane Stewart, R.N. Gregory Stockton Tom Delizio, M.D. Beverly Stiles, Ph.D. Larry Rains, D.D.S. RECEIVED IN CITY CLERK'S OFFICE ' I Date By TimE gA/�J Barbara J. Clements. Director of Health Reuben A. Warren, Jr., Assistant Director of Health WICHITA CO. REPRESENTATIVE: WICHITA FALLS CITY COUNCIL: Joe Miller, County Commissioner WICHITA FALLS CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE: Jim Berzina, City Manager Kenley Hegglund, Assistant City Attorney MINUTES: I. Call to order Susan Strate, Chair, called the meeting to order at 12:15 p.m. Dr. Strate asked that Barbara Clements introduce Kenley Hegglund, Assistant City Attorney and Jim Berzina, City Manager to the Board. II. Approval of Minutes: Moved by Dr. Sultemeier, and seconded by Greg Stockton that the December 19, 2003 minutes be approved. The motion passed. III. Animal Control Ordinance Ms. Clements stated that through several meetings, there remain two areas that require public discussion with the Board. The issue of how the Board will define 'at large' in reference to cats, especially those cats that remain unlicensed and the Page 1 of 4 issue concerning the number of animals that could be permitted to be licensed individually and not permitted under any special situation. Mr. Kinley Hegglund addressed the Board and stated that he feels that they may have arrived at language that may allow a licensed cat to be on its owner's property unrestrained. That language is in the last sentence of Section 14 -1 and is as follows: At large means any animal, including fowl or livestock, not restrained by some physical means to the premises of its owner or harborer. However, an animal, fowl or livestock shall not be considered at large when held and controlled by some person by means of a leash or chain of proper strength and length to control the actions of the animal, fowl or livestock or while confined within a non - open -bed vehicle or secured by a rope, leash or chain in any open -bed vehicle. Further, an animal shall not be considered at large when participating in a show, competition or training program that is approved by the local health rabies control authority and is conducted in an area which is approved by the local rabies control authority. Further, a licensed cat shall not be considered at large when on the owner's premises, is physically held or controlled by a person, or is restrained by means of a rope, leash or chain. Mr. Jim Berzina thanked the Board for allowing him to speak on the at large issue. He stated his concern was that the issue before the Board could add extra responsibilities to the staffs workload. The main point remaining is the running at large. He is aware of the many calls generated by the public to the City offices concerning cats at large that have been run over and the smells generated by these animals that don't always restrict themselves to the owners yards. He stated he understands there is to be discussion involving a neighbor giving consent for the cat to be on his property. He hopes there can be language clearly stating the consent issue as he feels this will be an area for the courts. His main concern at this point is use of the term 'public property'. He believes that the running at large needs to be controlled and regulated concerning public right of way and streets. If you look at a plat of any subdivision, largely what you see is mainly streets and public right of way. He wants to give the health and animal control people a workable ordinance. Following a lengthy debate from the floor, Dr. Sultemeier stated that she would agree to remove 'public property' from the veterinarians draft but that she is not comfortable with the broad scope of Mr. Hegglund's draft. Dr. Sultemeier made a motion to amend the proposal of the Health District draft in Section 14 -236 to read ..... or on public property except schoolyards or parks ". Dr. Delizio seconded the amendment. Mr. Warren asked Dr. Sultemeier, for clarification purposes, to read the sentence in its entirety. Dr. Sultemeier read, "The prohibition against an animal running at large shall not apply to an owned, licensed and neutered cat that is on private property with the property owner's consent and not on public school yards or parks. Dr. Strate called for the vote on the amendment to Section 14 -246. The motion passed. Page 2 of 4 Dr. Strate called for the vote on Section 14 -246 as amended. The motion passed with 1 abstention. Mr. Hegglund stated the next question is the resolving the number of animals that may be kept with or without a permit as seen in 14 -206 and 14 -207. It is appropriate to discuss the pet fancier and hobby breeders. He recommends that 14 -108 be resolved first and that will determine the status of 14 -206 and 14 -207. Dr. Strate asked Dr. Sultemeier to make comments from the veterinarian's standpoint. Dr. Sultemeier stated that the recommendation from the vets is to change it to read "No person shall keep five or more in aggregate of either dogs or cats over the age of four months within the city who does not possess an unrevoked permit from the animal control department. " Following a discussion of the recommendation by several board members and Health District employees, Dr. Sultemeier made a motion to approve section 14 -108 as submitted by the veterinarian's. Dr. Delizio seconded it. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Hegglund then stated that since 14 -108 passed as recommended, the Board needed to look at Section 14 -207 Dr. Sultemeier made a motion to amend Section 14 -207 of the ordinance to read from 4 animals to 5 -8 animals as the veterinarians recommended. Dr. Delizio seconded the motion. Dr. Strate asked for discussion. Ms. Clements stated that the Health District would defend the sections as they stand in the draft. Mr. Hegglund clarified that, under this proposal, the veterinarians want both 14 -206 and 14 -207 to be 5 -8 animals. The only difference between the hobby breeder and pet fancier is whether the animal is neutered or unneutered. No one will apply for a pet fancier because it is less restrictive to get a hobby breeder license. Dr. Sultemeier stated that she would hope the fee schedule would be different. The Board does not set the fees for permits; it is up to the Health Department. If you have unneutered animals, you have other issues. Dr. Sultemeier requested to leave both Sections 14 -206 and 14 -207 as proposed, hoping that the Health Department would offer differential permitting fees. Dr. Strate called for the vote on 14 -206 and 14 -207 as amended with the number of animals reduced from 5 -10 to 5 -8. The motion passed unanimously. Dr. Sultemeier made the motion to accept the draft of the entire ordinance as submitted with today's amendments. Dr. Delizio seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Page 3 of 4 IV. Adjourn It was moved by Greg Stockton and seconded by Dr. Sultemeier that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 1:45 p.m. Sult eier, Secretary alth Board Page 4 of 4