Animal Shelter Oversight Committee Meeting

City of Norman Animal Welfare Oversight Committee Norman Animal Welfare Center Multi-purpose Room 3428 South Jenkins Ave Monday, October 8, 2018 6:00 p.m. I. Call to Order…………………........……………Co-chairpersons Mark Howery / Rebecca Bean II. Roll Call………………...……………………................Co-chairs Mark Howery / Rebecca Bean III. Discussion & Approval of the September Minutes. ..................Co-chairs Mark Howery / Rebecca Bean Action needed: Motion to Approve or Reject Minutes Action Taken: _______________________________________________________ IV. Monthly Statistics and Division Updates ….……….........................................… Mark Bechtel - Status of Veterinary Position Action needed: Acknowledge Presentation V. Old Business Updates and Follow-ups …………......................................……… Mark Bechtel - Update on Viewing Stray Hold On-line - NAWC Phone Queue and Hold Time Action Needed: Discussion and Acknowledge Presentation VI. AWOC Annual Report Update.........................................Co-chairs Mark Howery / Rebecca Bean Action Needed: Discussion and Motion to Advance Report to City Council Action Taken: _______________________________________________________ VII. Fundraising and Community Outreach ………………. Co-chairs Rebecca Bean / Mark Howery Action Needed: Discussion VIII. Review and Discussion of Public Comments Received at September Meeting re: Ordinance Changes…………Co-chairs Rebecca Bean / Mark Howery Action Needed: Discussion IX. Call for Agenda Items for Next Meeting .........................Co-chairs Rebecca Bean / Mark Howery X. Miscellaneous Comments………………………….........Co-chairs Mark Howery / Rebecca Bean XI. Adjournment………………………….………….........Co-chairs Mark Howery / Rebecca Bean Action needed: Motion to adjourn meeting Action Taken: _____________________________________________________________  Animal Welfare Oversight Committee September 10th, 2018 I. Call to Order Co- chairperson Mark Howery called the meeting to order at approximately 6:03 PM. II. Roll Call BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Co-Chairperson Mark Howery Co-Chairperson Rebecca Bean Councilwoman Kate Bierman David Biles, D.V.M Jennifer Kidney, PhD Kim Fairbanks Kristy Wicker Sandy Moore-Furneaux OTHERS PRESENT: Ashley Battiest, Norman Animal Welfare Jeanne Snider, Asst. City Attorney Major Kevin Foster Mark Bechtel, Norman Animal Welfare Manager  Trey Amrein, Norman Animal Welfare Supervisor III. Discussion and Approval of the July Minutes A motion was made to approve the minutes, as amended for grammatical errors, by Jennifer Kidney. Rebecca Bean seconded. IV. Monthly Statistics and Division Updates Mark Bechtel began by giving a brief overview of the shelter numbers for July and August. He talked about the continued increase in intake numbers of both cats and dogs. Owner surrender numbers are down because of the managed intake that Norman has been doing to help with the numbers of animals coming into the shelter. He said the lower number of animals pulled by rescues in July was due to low staffing levels. Shelter euthanasias for July included eleven dogs for behavioral reasons and four cats for medical reasons. In August, two cats were euthanized for medical reasons and three dogs for behavioral issues. Mark Howery asked if animals in foster were reflected in the transferred out category. Mark Bechtel said, no; they are still counted as animals in shelter until pulled by a rescue or adopted. They are included in the length of stay calculation, as well. There are currently around 66 kittens out in foster. Sandy Moore- Furneaux asked who is currently assessing behavioral issues at the shelter. Mark Bechtel said several staff members are involved in the process, including him. At this time, there is no specific criterion that is used. Rebecca Bean asked if a specialized position that is dedicated to rescues should be looked for in the future. Mark Bechtel agreed that it would be something to consider in the future. Kristy Wicker asked about seeing the statistics over periods of time to see patterns in the data. Co-Chairperson Mark Howery introduced Dr. David Biles to the audience. He will be the new oversight committee member replacing Dr. Joe Carter. Mark also introduced Kate Bierman as the new council liaison for the committee. V. Previous Business Updates Mark Bechtel stated that the owner surrender list has gone from 113 in July to 94 in August, and he said that, of that number, several have been called back or had been left voicemails. Rebecca Bean asked if that indicates that people on that list, who have made the decision to surrender, are now working harder to rehome the animals themselves, pointing out that some people can wait, but other cases are more urgent. Mark Bechtel said that staff does try to assess the severity of the need, and if it is an urgent matter, the animal is accepted immediately. Mark Bechtel addressed the issue of not being able to see stray animals online. He said there is agreement that this can be done with our software. He has gotten a quote on how much it will cost and has already submitted a request for approval from the city council. The next step will be for the IT department at Shelter Buddy to finish the work and generate an invoice, and he’s anticipating having that up and running within a month. Strays will be posted through Shelter Buddy on the Animal Welfare website, not through adoptapet.com. Regarding the new phone system, Mark Bechtel said they have identified a few areas to work on. One of these is that the monthly report he receives does not reflect the citizens’ concerns about long hold times. In the current report, it states that average hold times are around 35 seconds, which doesn’t reflect the 30 -45 minute wait times people say they have experienced. He is working on the criteria for the report so that he can get a more accurate picture of wait times. Mark Bechtel gave a quick update on the budget. The big changes were the $15,000 addition to the medical budget, the $5,000 addition to the food budget, and the $17,500 increase to the animal care supplies fund. Mark Bechtel spoke about the HVAC system and finding an answer to the problems that the shelter has been having. As the units are replaced in the future, they will be coated to extend their longevity. The cost quoted will be about $2,000 per tonnage. There are nine units of various tonnages at the shelter. Major Foster brought up the items on the budget that had not been approved. The car port for the adoption trailer, the additional outside kennels for the intake side, and the cameras and door access additions were not approved. VI. Biennial Report Update  Mark Howery passed out an incomplete draft of the biennial report. He stated that tables three and four of the report are broken into two month segments to show seasonal trends. Any comments from committee members can be addressed at the October meeting. VII. City Ordinance Proposals--Chapter 3/ Animal Welfare Rebecca Bean introduced the proposed ordinance changes. These ordinances were updated in 2009 and then again in 2016. Anything underlined is something that has been added or is new. Discussion began with changes made to Sec. 3-102, the definition of adequate shelter. The ordinance has been amended to strengthen the definition of adequate shelter to ensure protection from extreme temperatures and to allow for the animal to move freely or to lie down comfortably. There were no questions or comments on this section. Rebecca Bean went over the new language in Section 3-1154 that codifies what constitutes an owner. This added language indicates that a person is an owner if he/she has kept an animal over seven days and provides food, water, and care. Henry Baskeyfield commented on the policy at the shelter. When a citizen surrenders an animal to the shelter and they have had it for over seven days, the shelter determines them to be the owner for the purpose of surrendering it. He says this ordinance appears to say that if you keep any animal for seven days, you are the new owner of that animal. Dr. Amy Tyler said that microchips are how the shelter identifies the owners. Mark Howery suggested that if the policy is enough, then the additional language might not be needed. Trey Amrein said that language could be added to include the use of microchips and tattoos to determine an animal's owner. Rebecca Bean said that this section was something brought forward by Animal Welfare. She said that Animal Welfare could discuss the intent behind the change with city legal to make sure the language was correct. Kristy Wicker commented that some animals listed under exotic wildlife are actually native wildlife. Jeanne Snider will contact Kristy for clarification. Rebecca Bean introduced Section 3-205 that includes shortening the stray hold time at the shelter from five days to three. She said the idea comes from Animal Welfare staff and that it is one solution to managing the flow of animals through the shelter more efficiently while not undermining the goal of saving animals. She asked about the language involving exemption of any hold times for kittens and puppies under the age of four months “without a known owner or mother.” Does the shelter not have litters with mothers that come in that would also need to be exempt from hold times and moved out of the shelter as quickly as possible? Dr. Amy Tyler spoke about a similar instance in California in which stray hold times were shortened to help save more lives. She had suggested an ordinance that stated that three or more puppies or kittens from the same location could go directly to adoption or be pulled by a rescue agency because litters of puppies or kittens are rarely reclaimed. The policy she had suggested was that any kitten or puppy under four months could go directly to foster to serve their stray hold time with the understanding that, if an owner comes forward, it would be returned to the shelter to be reclaimed. This differs from the ordinance proposed as it states that any puppy or kitten under four months can go directly to be processed for adoption and not serve any hold time. Dr. Amy Tyler said that over a period of eight months at the shelter, there were only 20 puppies that were reclaimed. Rebecca Bean summarized by saying that litters of three or more can go directly into adoption or foster or pulled by a rescue. Single puppies or kittens that come into the shelter can be pulled by a rescue or go into foster but will still serve a three day stray hold in case an owner comes forward. Mandy James asked why Sec3-205 (2) had been struck out. This was the section that increases an animal's impoundment period by 48 hours if the animal comes in with a microchip or displaying a tag. Jeanne Snider said that may have been an accidental deletion. It will be kept. With regard to Section 3-205 (3), Trey Amrein explained that in the event that an animal comes into the shelter and an owner is experiencing a situation that prohibits him or her from picking up the animal, such as being in jail, after notifying the owner, the shelter may seek a petition from a judge for the release of the animal into the custody of the Animal Welfare Center. John Bowman commented that animals are personal property. He doesn’t think you can codify taking an individual’s personal property. Jeanne Snider said she would talk to district judges about this matter so that Animal Welfare can do the best thing for the animals. Section 3-205 (7) added language into the ordinance to return cats that are part of the Trap Neuter Return (TNR) program to the original location in accordance with common program standards. Kim Fairbanks said she thought this was a good ordinance, but that it wasn’t happening often. Trey Amrein asked about returning cats that had been trapped as a nuisance back to the original location after being altered and given vaccinations. Dr. Amy Tyler cited a 2014 study in which the area that was targeted for TNR saw a 66% decline in animals being brought to the shelter over the course of two years. If a citizen had complained about the cat and didn’t want it back in the area, it wouldn’t be taken back to that area. Dr. Tyler said that they found that if they explained to the person who didn’t want the cat back that it would stop marking and vocalizing, the person was often willing to take it back on to their property. Kim Fairbanks said that this is already done by Hands Helping Paws. They do talk to the people who are having issues with community cats, and if they still don’t want the cats back, Hands Helping Paws takes the cats into their rescue. Henry Baskeyfield commented that if Norman Animal Welfare were to start a TNR program, there would need to be more language added to explain exactly what the shelter's role in the program was. Do we know where all the colonies are, do we know who is taking care of them? He believes there needs to be more language in the ordinance if the city is participating. Dr. Amy Tyler said that she wanted it in the ordinances to open the door for something like this to happen in the future at Norman Animal Welfare. Kim Fairbanks commented that this is the national trend, and that Hands Helping Paws does currently keep track of all colonies and most but not all caretakers. Rebecca Bean said that the key word Is “may.” She thinks it does open the door to keeping more animals out of the shelter. It doesn’t give the shelter any more obligations. Mathew Clinton asked if there were any related increases in bird deaths from feral cat colonies. Jennifer Kidney said that the National Audubon Society's stance is to euthanize all feral cats because cats are supposedly the number two killers of birds. However, Norman's cat colonies that are well managed are probably not that big of a problem. Mark Howery agreed with Jennifer. He doesn’t think there is data that shows what these specific colonies are killing. To his knowledge, most of these cat colonies that are being managed are at apartment complexes, strip malls, and other urban areas where they don’t affect the wild bird population very much. He would have a problem with colonies being supported in areas like parks and other conservation areas. Kristy Wicker talked about the fact that this program ideally is stabilizing the colony numbers and eventually reducing the numbers of cats. John Bowman commented that this ordinance, as well as the owner surrender section, falls under Animal Welfare policy rather than ordinances, and he does not think they need to be codified. The added owner surrender section 3. 206 was agreed to be more policy-related and could be taken out. Sandy Moore-Furneaux said that there needs to be a provision added for euthanasia for dangerous or unadoptable animals because of aggressive behavior. Sec.3-223 Altering of Dogs and Cats Rebecca Bean said the idea behind this ordinance was to follow other towns in Oklahoma and nation-wide that have said, if you are not going to breed your animal, then it should be spayed or neutered. Written into the ordinance are provisions for getting a breeder's license if you do want to breed your animal. The goal of the ordinance is to combat the number of unwanted litters of kittens and puppies. Dr. Amy Tyler commented that mandatory spay and neuter laws are not supported by the AVMA or the ASPCA and not supported by the Humane Society of the United States. AVMA does not support the mandatory spay and neuter of privately owned non-shelter animals. These mandatory laws may contribute to owners avoiding licensing, rabies vaccinations, and vet care for their pets. These types of laws may scare people from getting the vet care that they need. Rebecca Bean said that the Norman community does have several low cost spay and neuter opportunities available to the community. She spoke about allowing a certain amount of time for education before implementing such an ordinance. Laura Bowman asked why would the city introduce a mandatory spay and neuter ordinance without a provision for those owners who don’t want to have their animals altered for reasons other than for breeding purposes. Rebecca Bean said that what Oklahoma City has done is provide an exemption for people with purebred animals. Henry Baskeyfield said that he doesn’t think that Norman citizens are as much of the problem as people from the surrounding areas now trying to bring the animals they found to Norman Animal Welfare to be adopted. Kate Bierman said she thinks that Norman is carrying the burden for surrounding areas for services that the shelter provides. She, herself, has had to turn away people every day from her business because their dogs are unaltered and they want boarding or daycare services for their animal. Dr. Amy Tyler said the proven way to reduce pet overpopulation is targeted spay and neuter programs. Mandy James asked how the ordinance was going to be enforced and where will we put the extra animals that come in because people can’t afford to have their animals altered? Mary Katherine Long commented that Oklahoma City doesn’t have a mandatory spay and neuter ordinance; instead, they have an ordinance that says, if your animal ends up in the shelter, it will be altered before it leaves. She is skeptical about a mandatory spay and neuter law. She also noted that none of the low-cost apay and neuter facilities listed on the hand-out was located in Norman. She would like to see efforts made toward making spaying and neutering animals more accessible to the community. Sereta Wilson said that perhaps the language is not correct. The problem that needs to be addressed are dogs that are continually at large and returned to their owner without being altered. There was a question about who came up with the proposed changes. Jeanne Snider said that there was a working group of council members, committee members, and Animal Welfare staff. Some changes have been discussed before, and ultimately, they would be brought before the public and then to the city council. Jeanne Snider said that it looks like this ordinance needs to be looked at again and reworked. Jessica Beam commented that, if we say that everything that comes through the shelter needs to be spayed or neutered, there is no way for medical staff on hand to perform all those surgeries. Rebecca Bean said that there is no question that, if this ordinance is passed, we would have to consider how to make sure that it is possible. There was a general consensus that the new added section on marking of altered animals was not needed and was removed. Sec. 3-301 A section was added that made it unlawful to allow any animal to be dyed, colored, or otherwise altered for the purposes of using it as a promotional item, prize, or giveaway. The word “business” in section (k) should be reconsidered..  Section 3-401 Tethering. There were two options for consideration. One prohibits tethering of any animal with a specific exemption that Animal Welfare Officers may grant for a short duration. The second option allows tethering with specific conditions. Sereta Wilson commented that she had a specific complaint in Ward Five that related to tethering, and there was nothing in our ordinance that said you couldn’t leave your dog out on a tether year round in harsh conditions. This ordinance would give Animal Welfare Officers the ability to intercede in those cases. This ordinance would be for when there is a complaint or problem with a dog living in an inhumane condition. Laura Bowman said that temperatures might be breed specific. Dr. Biles said we need to ask why people tether their dogs. There could be underlying issues. Sereta Wilson said, in her instance, neighbors asked if they could help build a fence, help get vet care for the dog, or adopt the dog. They were told by the owner that it was his dog and this was what he wanted to do with it. Henry Baskeyfield said the reason anyone ties up a dog is to keep it contained; some dogs can’t be contained by a fence. Mandy James said one of her neighbors has a dog tethered because the neighbor is worried it will harm other dogs or people or be harmed itself. Sometimes, a dog is tethered for the protection of other people and animals. Rebecca Bean said enforceability is the important part. If there’s an acceptable amount of time for a dog to be tethered, then how will that be determined? Kate Bierman asked if the dog that was on the tether would be a situation that Mandy would complain about. The point is that this ordinance is not used as a sword, but as a shield. This is needed for the times when people are seeing a dog on a tie-out day in and day out for years. Jeanne Snider said that maybe this could be changed and put under the section for cruelty, instead of a ban on tethering. Emily Nichols thinks the main concern is neglect and not containment. Rebecca Bean ended the discussion by saying dogs tethered are five times more likely to bite a child. She thought it was beyond an animal cruelty issue; it’s also a human safety issue. When looking at how to change the language, she wants to make sure its enforceable and also that the expectations for the citizens are clear. Section 3-402 discussed confinement of dogs and cats. The new proposed ordinance would be one of two options. The first option is that no cats are allowed to be at large, with  Norman Animal Welfare Monthly Statistical Report September 2018 IN SHELTER ANIMAL COUNTS 2017 2018 Comparisons Canine Feline Total Canine Feline Total Difference Percent Beginning 82 80 162 84 126 210 48 30% Ending 42 94 136 80 118 198 62 46% ANIMAL INTAKES 2017 2018 Comparisons Canine Feline Total Canine Feline Total Difference Percent Stray at Large 88 67 155 126 83 209 54 35% Owner Relinquish 13 19 32 4 7 11 (21) -66% Owner Intended Euth 5 0 5 2 1 3 (2) -40% Transfer In 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 #DIV/0! Other Intakes* 5 2 7 7 0 7 0 0% Returned Animal NA NA 0 19 5 24 24 #DIV/0! TOTAL LIVE INTAKES 111 88 199 158 97 255 56 28% *Confiscate, Protective Custody, Born in Shelter, and all other infrequent entries OTHER STATISTICS Comparisons 2017 Total 2018 Total Difference Percent Wildlife Collected (DOA) N/A 0 5 5 5 #DIV/0! Dog Collected (DOA) N/A 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Cat Collected (DOA) N/A 0 2 2 2 #DIV/0! Wildlife Transferred N/A 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Intake Horses N/A 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Intake Cows N/A 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Intake Goats N/A 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Intake Sheep N/A 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Intake Rabbits N/A 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Intake Pigs N/A 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Intake Other N/A 0 5 5 5 #DIV/0! TOTAL OTHER ITEMS 0 0 12 12 12 #DIV/0! LENGTH OF STAY (DAYS) 2017 2018 Dog N/A 17.6 Puppy N/A 14.7 Cat N/A 20.7 Kitten N/A 37 OWNER SURRENDER PENDING INTAKE Canine Feline Other Total Animals 66 55 0 121  Norman Animal Welfare Monthly Statistical Report September 2018 LIVE ANIMAL OUTCOMES 2017 2018 Comparisons Canine Feline Total Canine Feline Total Difference Percent Adoption 83 55 138 99 95 194 56 41% Return To Owner 30 1 31 43 1 44 13 42% Transferred Out 21 18 39 9 1 10 (29) -74% Returned in Field 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Other Outcome 1 0 1 0 0 0 (1) -100% TOTAL LIVE OUTCOMES 135 74 209 151 97 248 39 19% OTHER ANIMAL OUTCOMES 2017 2018 Comparisons Canine Feline Total Canine Feline Total Difference Percent Died in Care 0 0 0 1 5 6 6 #DIV/0! Lost in Care 2 0 2 0 0 0 (2) -100% Shelter Euth 9 0 9 8 5 13 4 44% Owner Intended Euth 5 0 5 2 1 3 (2) -40% TOTAL OTHER OUTCOMES 16 0 16 11 11 22 6 38% TOTAL OUTCOMES 2017 2018 Comparisons Canine Feline Total Canine Feline Total Difference Percent Total Live Outcomes 135 74 209 151 97 248 39 19% Total Other Outcomes 16 0 16 11 11 22 6 38% TOTAL OUTCOMES 151 74 225 162 108 270 45 20% SHELTER EUTHANASIA DATA Canine Feline Other Total Percentage Medical - Sick 3 4 7 54% Medical - Injured 0 1 1 8% Behavior - Aggressive 5 0 5 38% Behavior - Other 0 0 0 0% TOTAL EUTHANASIA 8 5 0 13 MONTHLY LIVE RELEASE RATE 2017 2018 95.0% 92.9% Live Outcomes / (Total Outcomes - Owner Int Euth)  Monthly Service By Assignment January 2018 to September 2018 Norman Animal Welfare Volunteers (ALL) Jan 2018 Feb 2018 Mar 2018 Apr 2018 May 2018 Jun 2018 Jul 2018 Aug 2018 Sep 2018 Total Place Assignment Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Norman Animal Welfare Center Groomer 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 NAWC-Bather / Groomer 0:00 1:45 0:00 4:38 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 6:23 NAWC-Beautification Volunteer 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 NAWC-Cat Socializer 101:36 115:22 106:15 112:13 28:09 72:27 59:42 54:06 35:49 685:39 NAWC-Community Outreach Volunteer 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 4:30 0:00 0:00 6:00 0:00 10:30 NAWC-Dog Handler 126:43 133:24 236:47 221:32 119:40 96:54 76:35 122:01 77:54 1,211:30 NAWC-Foster Program 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 NAWC-Laundry 0:00 0:00 0:00 1:17 7:12 0:00 0:00 2:50 14:00 25:19 NAWC-Lobby Greeter 58:12 62:23 30:29 51:00 47:12 57:45 50:30 75:45 45:06 478:22 NAWC-Orientation 31:00 20:00 17:00 16:00 7:00 7:00 20:00 15:00 10:00 143:00 NAWC-Photographer 0:00 0:00 2:38 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:55 0:00 0:00 3:33 Other Volunteer Services 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 Veterinarian Assistant Tech 44:29 18:39 23:40 50:56 63:19 65:25 81:00 3:00 12:05 362:33 Total 362:00 351:33 416:49 457:36 277:02 299:31 288:42 278:42 194:54 2,926:49 Grand total 362:00 351:33 416:49 457:36 277:02 299:31 288:42 278:42 194:54 2,926:49 Printed 10-03-2018 9:21 am Page 1