Loading...
WC CWF Health District Board Minutes - 04/07/2003I WICHITA FALLS - WICHITA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH BOARD PLACE: Wichita Falls- Wichita County Public Health District TIME: 6:00 p.m. DATE: April 7, 2003 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Kathy Sultemeier, D.V.M. Diane Stewart, R.N. Larry Rains, D.D.S. Beverly Stiles, Ph.D. Tom Delizio, M.D. Susan Strate, M.D. Gregory Stockton HEALTH DISTRICT Barbara J. Clements. Director of Health REPRESENTATIVES: Reuben A. Warren, Jr., Assistant Director of Health WICHITA FALLS LEGAL OFFICE: Bill Sullivan, City Attorney MINUTES: I. Call to order Diane Stewart, Vice Chair, called the meeting to order at 6.15 p.m. II. Discussion: Barbara Clements introduced Roy Ressel, the Environmental Health Coordinator and stated the reason for the called meeting was to discuss the recently approved amendments to the Texas Administrative Code Section 169.29 (a), Rabies Control and Eradication. The major impact of the amendments pertains to rabies vaccination requirements for dogs and cats in Texas is as summarized in the following: 1. all dogs and cats must receive a second rabies vaccination within one year of receiving their first vaccination, regardless of a. the type of vaccine used or b. the age at which the animal was initially vaccinated. 2. if the animal has received at least two vaccinations and the last vaccination consisted of a. an annual rabies vaccine, the animal must receive a vaccination within 12 months. b. a triennial vaccine, the animal must receive a vaccination within 36 months. 3. if the animal has received at least two vaccinations prior to this amendment and a triennial vaccine was used for the last vaccination, this amendment is retroactive (i.e., the animal's next vaccination will be due within 36 months from the date of its last vaccination). i RECEIVED IN CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Date 0� ` Os Y Page 1 of 3 By — Time Mr. Ressel began by reading the present City Ordinance requiring animal vaccinations which states "No person shall own, possess or harbor any dog or cat four (4) months of age or older, unless it has been vaccinated against rabies by a veterinarian or in an approved anti - rabies clinic in accordance with this section. Rabies vaccination shall be repeated every twelve (12) months ". Mr. Ressel then presented the following information for the Board's consideration: In 2002, cumulative totals provided by the Zoonosis Control Division of the Texas Department of Health for rabies testing on skunk, fox, bat, coyote, raccoon, dog, cat, bovine, equine, and other animals reflect 1,049 (9 %) positive; 10,708 (89 %) negative; 255 (2 %) other for a total of 12,012 animals tested. Of the 1,049 positive results, 740 were skunks, 48 foxes, 167 bats, 1 coyote, 12 raccoons, 15 dogs, 24 cats, 21 bovines, 5 equines and 16 other animals. Mr. Ressel stated that the annual shot is often recommended for the following reasons: 1) it gets owners in to the vet at least once a year. Annual checkups are important to a dog's health and this is an effective (albeit oppressive) means of ensuring owners make it to the vet; 2) annual rabies vaccine licenses issued by the county or state generate a lot of needed revenue. In Dade County, Florida, it's a $25 fee for a dog; 3) to ensure that the vaccine is effective, even though the vaccine may be good for 3 years. To them, one vaccine every 3 years is safe. Three vaccines every 3 years is triple the safety. When Animal Control picks up an unvaccinated animal, the owner is issued a card for $10 by the Animal Reclaim Center to take to a veterinarian to receive the rabies vaccination. The veterinarian then sends the cards to Animal Control for reimbursement. Dr. Stiles asked the difference in price to the owner between the one -year and the three -year vaccination. Dr. Sultemeier stated that there is no difference in price. Dr. Sultemeier stated that most area veterinarians would probably continue to vaccinate cats annually because the best vaccination for cats, with the least chance of causing reactions and tumors, is currently licensed as a one -year vaccine. She then stated that she doesn't feel Wichita Falls should differ from the State recommendations and requirements on vaccinations. Animals at risk are the ones in the country and those are not the ones the City is dealing with. She said that she would recommend that hunting dogs, dogs that go to the lake frequently or have exposure to wildlife continue to be vaccinated on an annual basis. Dr. Joe Wurster, D.V.M., asked what the policy would be toward enforcement between the time of passing the ordinance and it becoming effective. Would we follow State guidelines or maintain the current policy since this is a retroactive law? Mr. Ressel stated that under the existing City Ordinance, the animal must be vaccinated annually. Mrs. Clements interjected that if we accept the State requirement, as Dr. Sultemeier suggested, the ordinance could be on the agenda at the first council meeting in May. Mr. Sullivan stated that rescinding that section of the Ordinance relating to the time frame would make it effective immediately with no waiting period. Dr. Sultemeier made the motion recommending that the City of Wichita Falls accept the new language of the Texas Board of Health Section 169.20 (a) that approved amendments to Page 2 of 3 J. 1 Texas Administrative Code, Rabies Control and Eradication. Dr. Rains seconded the motion. A voice vote was unanimous. After a brief discussion, Dr. Sultemeier made a motion to recommend the repeal of paragraph (b) Section 5 -6 of the City Ordinance (and any other section) dealing with the frequency of rabies vaccination. Dr. Rains seconded the motion. A voice vote was unanimous III. Other Business Mrs. Clements distributed a memo written by Bill Sullivan to Mayor Bill Altman, Councilors James Esther, Jr., and Mike Norrie concerning the City of Wichita Falls livestock regulations. In the memo Mr. Sullivan recommended rewording part of the ordinance. He explained to the Board the confusion concerning the word "enclosure" in the ordinance. According to him, some people interpret "enclosure" to mean a structure, and others think it means a fence. Dr. Sultemeier stated that at the last Board meeting, "They were encouraged by a County Commissioner and a City Councilor that if the Board were to change it at that point, while it is being challenged it would weaken our case and give credence to the person making the challenge, that the Board was becoming more restrictive ". She then asked Mr. Sullivan if he thought this would be a problem or not. Mr. Sullivan answered that, at this time, there are no pending cases with anyone concerning this problem. He suggested that the language be changed before this becomes a problem again. This recommended revision would concern only the setback requirements and not manure removal. Dr. Rains made a motion to accept the recommendation that Section 14- 420(a) concerning setback made by Mr. Sullivan, which reads: "Setback required; minimum space required. No livestock shall be kept or maintained at a distance closer than 200 feet from a residence located on another's property. All such livestock shall be maintained on a properly fenced parcel of land, providing a minimum of 600 square feet of area for each head of livestock. All such livestock shall have provided by their owner a shed of reasonable size for the number of livestock to be protected, as provided in subsection 14- 381(1)b." Dr. Sultemeier seconded the motion. The motion passed by a unanimous vote of the Board. Adjourn It was moved by Dr. Sultemeier and seconded by Dr. Rains that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. .thy S temeier, Secretary v blic. ealth Board Page 3 of')