District 3 Advisory Board

District III Advisory Board Minutes for May 1, 2019 DISTRICT III ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES May 1, 2019 www.wichita.gov The District III Advisory Board meeting was held at 6:30 p.m. at the WATER Center, 101 E. Pawnee, Wichita, KS 67211. Council Member James Clendenin, eight District Advisory Board members, nine City staff, and 21 members of the public were present. Members Present Staff Present Catherine Johnson Officer Vanessa Minks, Community Policing, Cindy Miles Wichita Police Department David Robbins Officer Nathan Schwiethale, Homeless Gerald Henry Outreach Team, WPD Jared Cerullo Lt. Gary Kennedy, Wichita Fire Department Michael Loop Firefighter Tanner Gilmore, WFD Paul Davis Dave Yearout, Principal Planner, Metropolitan Ron Tracy Area Planning Department CM Clendenin Capt. Chester Pinkston, Animal Control, WPD Lt. Brian Sigman, Animal Control, WPD Members Absent Jan Jarman, Assistant City Attorney Bruce Gass Maddy Campbell, Community Services Daisy Olivar Representative Marco Alcocer ORDER OF BUSINESS At 6:30 p.m. Council Member James Clendenin called the DAB meeting to order. The current Agenda and Minutes for April 3, 2019 were approved. STAFF REPORTS 1. Police Department Officer Nathan Schweithale, Homeless Outreach Team, WPD reported Community Police Officers from Patrol South are working with the Metropolitan Area Building and Construction Department (MABCD) to address blight in the alleys along the Broadway Corridor. He reminded the group that crime statistics can be viewed at https://communitycrimemap.com. He also spoke to the group about WPD’s Homeless Outreach Team, answered questions, and shared the following information about HOT:  HOT is comprised of three officers that respond to 911 calls related to homelessness across the entire city.  HOT officers are stationed out of Patrol South.  HOT focuses on helping the homeless find alternatives to going to jail and works to connect those experiencing homelessness to appropriate resources for emergency shelter, transitional and permanent housing, mental health services, substance abuse treatment, and employment services.  HOT has decreased the city’s chronic homeless* population by 77 percent since the team was formed in 2011 (from 140 chronically homeless individuals on record to 32 currently). o *Chronic homelessness is defined as being homeless for a year or longer with at least one destabilizing condition (e.g. substance abuse or mental illness). 1  District III Advisory Board Minutes for May 1, 2019  HOT has an annual goal of obtaining housing for 100 homeless individuals and has met that goal almost every year since the team was developed.  HOT has been effective in lowering the homeless population and is now working to maintain low numbers.  People can contact HOT at (316) 854-3013. Officer Vanessa Minks, Community Policing, WPD thanked those who helped with the Love Your Community event in Planeview recently. She also shared that CP Officers with Patrol East are partnering with the Veteran’s Village of Wichita to host an event for veterans to fish and socialize. The event, “Reel Heroes Fish,” will be held from 9 a.m.-2 p.m. on May 23 at OJ Watson Park. The community is invited to participate. 2. Fire Department Lt. Gary Kennedy, Fire Station 22, WFD shared information about the four fires that occurred in District III in April. He told the group that the April Burn Ban is no longer applicable. He stated that we are in the common season for recreation fire pits and shared the following information about them:  Recreational fire pits cannot be larger than 3 feet in diameter and the fire cannot burn higher than 2 feet.  Fire pits must be made out of noncombustible material(s) (e.g. brick, stone, concrete, or metal).  Fires must use natural wood products. o Burning leaves is not permitted due to the amount of smoke produced. Burning trash, plastic, wire, and all other non-wood material is also prohibited.  Fire pits must be at least 15 feet from any flammable structure (house, deck, fence, shed, etc.).  Fire pits must be protected with a sparker screen if burning within 500 feet of a shake shingle roof.  Fire pits cannot be used if winds exceed 15 mph.  There needs to be an accessible water source near the fire pit.  To report a burn violation, call (316) 268-4441 (or 911 if it is after hours). The DAB asked and made the following summarized questions and comments: DAB: Are you allowed to dig a fire pit? A: I believe so since the ground is not combustible. DAB: What is the fine illegal burning? A: (Information provided via e-mail on May 5) If a ticket is issued, it is a mandatory court appearance. The judge decides the fine which can be up to $2500 or a one year jail sentence. Action Taken: Received and filed. NEW BUSINESS 3. CON2019-00008 Dave Yearout, Principal Planner, MAPD presented an application on behalf of Emma & The Family Home Remodel, LLC – Emmalys Gonzalez (Owner) for a Conditional Use request to permit an accessory apartment to the existing single-family home constructed on subject property 2  District III Advisory Board Minutes for May 1, 2019 occupied by the applicant. The structure to be converted to the accessory apartment is the detached garage, which is to the west of the residence. The applicant has provided a visual concept of how the garage will be modified for the proposed apartment. The applicant has indicated the intent is to provide the apartment for family members who often visit for extended periods of time. The site is generally located east of South Edgemoor Avenue and south of East Lincoln Street on the west side of the South Silverdale Court (1015 S. Silverdale Ct.). Yearout shared he has not received any complaints or concerns regarding this case and it is align with the goals of the Places for People Plan. The DAB heard the request so that Wichita residents had an opportunity to express their concerns. The agent/applicant was not in attendance. The DAB asked and made the following summarized questions and comments: DAB: This home is a few houses down from me. I see this as a real plus for the City to allow these types of accessory changes to be done by right. DAB: Is the owner allowed to lease the accessory apartment? A: Yes, the owner is allowed to lease the accessory apartment for income. There is no distinction stating the apartment must be occupied by a family member. DAB: People tend to be selective when renting out accessory units on their property they also live on. Action Taken: Motion made by Dave Robbins and seconded by Paul Davis to APPROVE the application. Motion PASSED 7-0-1. 4. CON2019-00009 Yearout presented an application on behalf of Tuy Huu Ho for a Conditional Use request to build a new accessory apartment, approximately 1,300 square feet, west of the existing primary residence. The site is generally located 2,000 feet east of South Broadway Avenue on the north side of East 59th Street South (902 E. 59th St. S.) and is currently developed with a single-family home with an attached garage. The DAB heard the request so that Wichita residents had an opportunity to express their concerns. The agent/applicant was in attendance. DAB and members of the public asked and made the following summarized questions and comments: DAB: Are accessory structures required to have water and electricity? A: Yes. DAB: Once an accessory structure is built, can the owner split the lot? A: They would need to go through the formal platting process. Public: Are there any restrictions on the hours that construction of the accessory apartment can take place? A: The City noise ordinance on construction requires work be done between the hours of 7 a.m.-10 p.m. If there is a concern about noise, I would encourage you to attend the MAPC hearing or put 3  District III Advisory Board Minutes for May 1, 2019 your concerns in writing and send to MAPC to advocate that they include conditions that will consider construction time periods. Action Taken: Motion made by Dave Robbins and seconded by Catherine Johnson to APPROVE the application. Motion PASSED 7-0-1. 5. TNR (Trap, Neuter, Return/Release) Ordinance Stephanie McCurdy, Acting Chairperson, Animal Control Advisory Board presented the proposed TNR ordinance meant to address the city’s feral cat population. In summary, the DAB and residents overwhelmingly opposed the proposed ordinance. DAB voted to deny the ordinance with a 6-1-0 vote. Motion to deny was made on the basis that the ordinance lacks enforceability and protection for property owners and because cats should not be returned to neighborhoods due to nuisance problems. Only one out of seven public speakers supported the ordinance. As a whole the group was opposed to the ordinance for these primary reasons:  Feral cats are a nuisance and menace to public health and the City should not sanction/support the establishment of feral cat colonies and the returning of cats to residential areas.  There is significant concern related to Animal Control’s perceived incompetency in responding to and managing animal nuisance calls.  The ordinance is heavily biased, poorly written, and lacks enforceability and credibility.  TNR will not reduce the feral cat population in Wichita and its attempt at being a humane alternative to euthanasia is misguided. DAB generally opposed the ordinance for the following reasons:  Cats should not be returned to neighborhoods they are not wanted in.  The ordinance is not enforceable.  There is concern about Animal Control’s ability to respond to and adequately manage nuisance complaints.  There is no requirement or way to track if community cats are up to date on rabies vaccinations.  There are no record-keeping requirements outlined in the ordinance or way of tracking specific cats.  Designated wildlife areas will be negatively impacted by nearby feral cat colonies.  It is misguided to return cats to a poor quality life.  Eight cats is too many to allow in a colony should a TNR policy be adopted. The public generally opposed the ordinance for the following reasons:  There are numerous concerns about ACAB’s poor development, management, and presentation of the ordinance: o The ordinance had extremely limited input and was heavily biased by cat activists. o The ordinance was only narrowly passed by ACAB and its supporters within ACAB lack expertise and credibility and are not representative of those who will be impacted by the ordinance. o ACAB members who attempted to improve the ordinance through judicious research and consultation were actively ignored. o There is skepticism over factual accuracy of information presented by the ACAB Chair. o The online survey which influenced the ordinance is not representative of Wichita’s constituents as many who responded live outside the city and state. 4  District III Advisory Board Minutes for May 1, 2019  Many people do not want to see feral cats returned to their residential area and would be unhappy living near a colony as feral cats are a nuisance and menace to public health.  The ordinance is too narrow and does not effectively address the nuisance aspect of cat colonies.  Animal Control is currently unresponsive to animal nuisance complaints and will not be able to effectively respond to or manage increased nuisance issues caused by cat colonies.  The ordinance infringes on property owner rights. There is no recourse/accountability for damage inflicted by cat colonies as the ordinance absolves caregivers of ownership and any legal responsibility.  The ordinance is heavily skewed toward prioritizing feline welfare over human quality of life.  It is negligent to propose a TNR ordinance that does not sufficiently include thorough rabies safety provisions/requirements.  The ordinance will not decrease the feral cat population despite its current misrepresentation of being a solution for that goal. There is no research or data to support TNR decreasing feral cat populations in cities of comparable size.  The ordinance is a misguided attempt at humanely dealing with feral cats as most cats are returned to terrible living conditions.  The ordinance does not limit the number of colonies in an area.  The ordinance does not protect designated wildlife areas.  Otherwise lawful individuals may be driven to illegally killing feral cats out of desperation stemming from unmanaged nuisance problems.  The ordinance falls short in addressing responsible cat ownership.  There is concern about the effectiveness of Friends of Felines and similar organizations Animal Control would partner with if the ordinance is passed. Friends of Felines will not operate during kitten season and will subsequently be ineffective at not only lowering the feral cat population but even in maintaining it. Action Taken: Substitute motion made by Jared Cerullo and seconded by Michael Loop to DENY the proposed ordinance. Motion PASSED 6-1-0. A more extensive summary reflecting the specific questions and comments that were asked and made during this presentation can be found starting on Page 7. PUBLIC AGENDA 6. Off-Agenda Items No items presented. BOARD AGENDA 7. Updates, Issues, Reports CM Clendenin and DAB members shared and talked about the following:  The City is exploring smart parking meters to be used in conjunction with smart phone parking apps.  Ballpark Stadium Updates: o CM Clendenin encouraged the group to email him with any questions and/or concerns. o McLean Boulevard has been a polarizing subject in relation to the baseball stadium development. The decision to narrow McLean Boulevard to one lane was a compromise between those who wanted it closed entirely and those who wanted it 5  District III Advisory Board Minutes for May 1, 2019 to be kept open. Traffic studies show that traffic will continue to flow with minimal to no change after it is narrowed. o The City will be adding a large multi-modal parking facility in the vicinity of the stadium that will provide additional parking as well as serve other transportation methods such as Uber/Lyft, the City’s trolley and buses, taxis, and rental scooters/bikes.  There is a District III community breakfast from 9-10:30 a.m. on May 4 at the Christian Faith Centre (1130 S. Broadway). The guest presenter will be from Tobacco Free Wichita. Action Taken: Received and filed. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:56 p.m. The next District III Advisory Board meeting will be held at 6:30 p.m. on June 5, 2019 at the WATER Center, 101 E. Pawnee, Wichita, KS 67211. Guests Mearlin Overton Christa Lawrence Charles Hodge Gail Martinson Chad Roush J.D.M. Cheryl T. R.H. Tom Ewert Michael Nolan Ellen Querner Respectfully submitted, Maddy Campbell, Community Services Representative, District III 6  District III Advisory Board Minutes for May 1, 2019 Extended Summary for Agenda Item #5 “TNR (Trap, Neuter, Return/Release) Ordinance” DAB asked and made the following summarized questions and comments: DAB: Who will incur the costs related to this ordinance? Will volunteers be responsible for the expenses of neutering/spaying and caring for any released cats? Will the responsibility of funding the implementation and execution of this ordinance fall on taxpayers? A (McCurdy): Right now the Wichita Animal Shelter accounts for the cost of boarding cats in their budget. If the cats are to be neutered/spayed and released, those and ongoing expenses will depend on community—not taxpayer—funding. DAB: Are you confident there is enough community support to raise funds sufficient to support the enforcement of this ordinance? A (McCurdy): There are grant funds available to support this that can be applied for once a TNR ordinance is in place. DAB: Were any animal professionals or veterinarians consulted in the survey or creation of this ordinance? A (McCurdy): The community survey was provided to ACAB by the City of Wichita. We did not get the demographics or occupation of anyone who responded to the survey. ACAB was able to talk to multiple veterinarians. A lot of the ones I personally spoke to are in favor of this ordinance because they have people bring in kitten litters that they must take to the shelter. They know if the kittens are not adopted out or claimed they will be euthanized. DAB: Who was surveyed in the community survey? A (public): Research was conducted on the survey responders’ IP addresses and many of them were out of state. DAB: In regard to the “mandated registration of cat colonies,” do you have a definition of what that is? Do those who register the colony fund the feeding and welfare of the cats? A (McCurdy): The people managing these community cat colonies are the people already giving them water and food. A lot of these caregivers are already using their own money to provide vaccinations. If they sign up as a registered caregiver, they are the ones bearing those expenses. DAB: Is there a reporting requirement for registered colonies? A (McCurdy): An annual reporting procedure has not been defined yet; however, we anticipate a procedure might look like answering the following questions:  How many cats do they still have in their colony?  Have they lost any cats in their colony?  Have additional cats joined the colony?  What time are the cats feeding and interacting in the colony? DAB: What happens if a neighbor traps a cat from someone’s colony and takes it to the shelter? A (McCurdy): It would be up to that caregiver to find the animal. If a community cat ends up in the shelter and a caregiver does not claim it, then it will be euthanized. DAB: Will WPD have a role in this? A (McCurdy): They already have a current role because of nuisance violations and calls through Animal Control. DAB: Will they have an active role? 7  District III Advisory Board Minutes for May 1, 2019 DAB: I have read through the ordinance and I have some concerns about enforcement. For instance the ordinance states “Feeding, watering, or caring for feral or feral eartipped cats without being registered as a Community Cat Caregiver will be unlawful.” Who will be responsible for enforcing that? What about the part of the ordinance that mentions a community cat not being allowed into homes? I am concerned about incorporating things that are not enforceable. DAB: Is microchipping part of this? If not, how will you tell what cats have been vaccinated and when? A (McCurdy): Microchipping is not a part of this. The cats get eartipped. DAB: The rabies vaccine requires a booster after three years. How will you know if a cat is current on vaccinations? A (McCurdy): You will not know if the cat is current on vaccinations, but you will know it has gotten at least one (at the time it is eartipped). There are a lot of studies out there that say vaccinations last longer than the original year. The main objective of the ordinance is to get cats neutered/spayed to decrease the feral cat population. We do feel vaccinations are important, but they are not a priority in this ordinance as feral cats do not often interact with humans or other animals. DAB: What is the difference between a feral cat and community cat? A (McCurdy): A feral cat is one you cannot touch. A community cat is a feral cat that is part of a colony. DAB: I feel eight cats is a lot of cats to have in an area and they multiply. I feed birds and therefore worry about cat colonies negatively impacting designated wildlife habitats. Are we going to be able to create boundaries or determine a specified distance between designated wildlife areas and cat colonies? A (McCurdy): The ordinance does not dictate anything about barriers or distance. Cats can travel two and a half miles a day, so even if we can potentially setup a barrier or establish boundaries around wildlife areas or parks, we cannot guarantee cats will not travel into those areas. DAB: Have you considered tattooing a number or code on their ears to help with tracking purposes? That would allow you to see if a specific cat frequently comes through the shelter. A (McCurdy): We have been asked about microchipping. Unfortunately microchipping gets extremely expensive in mass quantities and for us to be able to do that there would need to be more community funds available. DAB: What is the typical life expectancy of a feral cat? A (McCurdy): I do not know that particular answer. I am not a veterinarian by trade. I am in the real estate business. DAB: I live close to a cat colony and there is a person who would be a caregiver, but they do not have the finances to do much other than provide a little food and water. It is pretty miserable living next to that and we are also concerned for the welfare of the cats as the caregiver cannot afford medical care for them and also cannot afford to get them neutered/spayed. A (McCurdy): My suggestion to you is to reach out to Friends of Felines (a local organization that currently practices TNR) and contact Animal Control. DAB: Who will be responsible for all the record-keeping? Will there be record-keeping? A (McCurdy): That is not defined in the ordinance. I do know private organizations are already keeping track of where colonies are, so that would be nice if they are able to share those records with the City. Most likely the responsibility of record-keeping would end up with Animal Control. 8  District III Advisory Board Minutes for May 1, 2019 Capt. Pinkston: I want to make sure everyone understands this is an important topic to the community that has been brought forth to you by ACAB. One of the things I hoped to do was bring the ordinance into the internal part of the City, look at it, and come up with a finalized product that I felt was workable before sending it back out. Unfortunately, the way the forces have worked with so many passionate people, I did not think that was practical to do. Instead, we decided to make the presentation to Council and Council chose to push it out to the DAB’s for hearing and input. In regard to the listed caregiver guidelines, we wanted to make sure they are something everyone can have access to and that they are generic, enforceable, and able to be modified without going to Council for a change of ordinance. When you ask about unenforceable things, like community cats being taken inside, that is included in this ordinance for the purpose of making sure no one manipulates the system to exceed the number of allowable internal cats by claiming they are community cats. Is everything in this ordinance easy for us to enforce? I cannot say right now. It is a work in process. I would think the DAB’s would want input. To say that the enforcement side of this proposed ordinance is completely there would be inaccurate, but right now the only enforceability we have anyway is nuisance or if someone exceeds the number of allowable internal cats. Members of the public made the following summarized comments: George Theoharis (District III resident and Grandview Heights/Meadowlark Neighborhood Association president) spoke out against the proposed ordinance. He shared that he grew up with cats, loves the species, and believes TNR has the potential to be a good thing, but feels strongly that this proposed ordinance is bad for the community. He supported his feelings with the following examples and sentiments:  He acquired $1500 in damage to his vehicle caused by three to four feral cats living next to him.  Currently nuisance calls are considered a “priority 3 call” for Animal Control. Animal Control cannot adequately respond to priority 1 and priority 2 calls, so the public should not have faith they will be able to respond to any feral cat nuisance calls (priority 3). He shared a frustrating experience in which he felt Animal Control did not adequately respond to numerous complaints about an aggressive dog (priority 1) which subsequently resulted in multiple people being attacked by that dog. He feels this example demonstrates that Animal Control cannot effectively manage their top priority calls and should not be expected to efficiently address low priority issues.  The proposed ordinance was only narrowly passed by ACAB. Two of the ACAB members who voted for it will not be affected by any nuisance problems stemming from a nearby cat colony as they live in HOAs that prohibit cat colonies. A veterinarian and former high-level administrative employee from the Kansas Humane Society—two of the more qualified ACAB members to speak on this subject—did not support the ordinance.  If this ordinance passes, otherwise law-abiding residents could become felons. An otherwise peaceful/compassionate person may be driven to shooting or poisoning feral cats to manage unresolved nuisance issues.  A TNR ordinance should be put on the ballot to allow the community to vote. Kent Barley (District III resident) also spoke against the proposed ordinance. He shared he likes cats and the idea of TNR, but feels this ordinance is too narrow and does not effectively address the nuisance aspect of feral cat colonies. He feels the ordinance is skewed too heavily toward the protection of cats and neglects the impacted welfare and quality of life for humans subject to living near cat colonies. He shared he currently lives near an apartment complex with roughly 100 feral cats. Some of the cats at the complex were illegally trapped, neutered/spayed, and returned by a local nonprofit (Friends of Felines) whose intentions were ultimately misguided due to the low quality of life those cats are experiencing. He stated the feral cats are causing numerous nuisance 9  District III Advisory Board Minutes for May 1, 2019 issues at the properties and are responsible for significant monetary damage to some of the apartments, which the apartment residents are being held accountable for. McCurdy asked if he had contacted Animal Control about the nuisance violations and he stated he has numerous times and nothing has been done. The third speaker (name and address not shared) spoke in support of the ordinance and shared that she has had a positive experience with feral cats living next to her and working with Friends of Felines. Mearlin Overton (District I resident and Matlock Heights Neighborhood Association president) was strongly against the proposed ordinance as she feels it infringes upon her rights as an individual and property owner for the City to allow feral cats to be returned to residential areas. She shared she has struggled financially and health-wise due to living near a colony of feral cats. She spoke about the nuisance issues (such as smell, property damage, and health concerns) related to living near a feral cat colony and stated that just because a group of activists love cats, that does not justify prioritizing feral cat welfare over the rights and quality of life for humans. She reported she has attempted to work with Animal Control to abate the nuisance cats on her property, but Animal Control is unable to provide the staff to assist with trapping. She said the cats are also reproducing too quickly for trapping to be manageable. She shared a formerly-mentioned concern about this ordinance pushing otherwise law-abiding citizens into illegally killing feral cats to alleviate nuisance problems Animal Control cannot or will not manage. McCurdy attempted to address the concern of trapped cats being returned to an area they are not wanted by reminding the group that the ordinance requires a property owner give permission before cats are returned. An ACAB member in the audience noted that stipulation does not negate the concern of cats being returned to an area they are not wanted as the cats can be returned to a colony next door or nearby. McCurdy reported someone would need to claim the cat(s) and pay a fee for them to be returned and any cats that are unclaimed after 12 days would be euthanized by Animal Control. A DAB member observed there would be no way to track or ensure someone coming to claim a cat is not already harboring eight (the maximum number allowed per the ordinance) or more cats. CM Clendenin informed the group of a nuisance case in which Animal Control deferred to Friends of Felines for assistance trapping feral cats at an apartment complex. Friends of Felines said they would not address the issue at this time due to being in “kitten season.” CM Clendenin requested that the ordinance address kitten season lapses in service that partnering organizations may observe before coming before City Council. McCurdy responded that the ordinance would not appeal to everyone and its greatest strength is its education for caregivers to be successful. Tom Ewert (District VI resident and President of the Wichita Audubon Society) shared he has a number of issues with this proposed ordinance and that the Wichita Audubon Society’s official stance is to urge DAB’s and City Council to vote against the ordinance. He shared the following comments and sentiments:  The ordinance had minimal support within ACAB and input was strictly limited to feline activists within the cat-feeding community.  He was one of the primary authors of Common Sense TNR Ordinance Addendums to a Lopsided TNR Proposal from ACAB—a document written by a group of people with varied expertise who feel the current proposed ordinance lacks credibility and supporting data and would require significant provisions and omissions to be effective. This document—which includes a list of suggested changes and objections—was provided to Animal Control for consideration in their review of the ordinance but was ultimately ignored/not incorporated. The ordinance should be rejected and sent back to the City’s Legal Department to rewrite. 10  District III Advisory Board Minutes for May 1, 2019  The ordinance changes the definition of a “feral cat” to “community cat” in hopes of misleading the community into acceptance.  The ordinance states that community cat caregivers will not be held responsible for any damage to property, health, or natural habitats—a stipulation which infringes upon an individual’s rights as a property owner or nature lover by leaving no room for recourse from nuisance problems or damage caused by living in the vicinity of a registered cat colony.  There are no studies of cities of comparable size that show any reduction in cat population as a result of TNR. Local groups in support of this ordinance have already been illegally practicing TNR and have been unsuccessful in reducing the cat population. McCurdy and proponents of the ordinance are misleading the public by sharing that the cat population will be reduced in three to five years and pointing to cities like Lawrence, Kansas and Oklahoma City for reference. Those two cities have only recently adopted TNR policies and have no data to demonstrate success.  The ordinance falls short in preventing and addressing cat owners from abandoning unwanted litters and/or allowing their unneutered/un-spayed cats to wander the streets.  PETA is opposed to TNR, because they feel the circumstances that cats are often returned to are not humane. Ellen Querner (District I resident, ACAB member, President of Spay Neuter Kansas, Inc., Pals Animal Rescue, Inc.) shared she is one of three ACAB members who voted against the proposed ordinance, not because they oppose TNR, but because they feel the ordinance is shortsighted as currently written. She feels that the ordinance does not adequately protect property, citizens, or animals. She thinks it is negligent to push for a TNR ordinance that does not sufficiently address rabies vaccinations. She shared that microchipping is inexpensive and is the only way to know if a community cat is up to date on its rabies vaccinations. She pointed out that many official health organizations and experts would refute McCurdy’s claim that one vaccination is sufficient for protection against rabies. She shared credible sources that state rabies vaccines are only good for three years and only if the original vaccination is followed up with a booster. She informed the group that Florida has seen an explosion of rabies in feral cats and stressed the importance of ensuring any adopted TNR policy incorporate thorough rabies safety provisions. She said she advocated for the ordinance to include a stipulation on the number of colonies in an area, but the narrow ACAB majority rejected that. She stated that TNR has never been proven to do anything other than maintain numbers in cities the size of Wichita; therefore, it is misleading for this ordinance to be presented as a solution that will decrease the feral cat population. She stressed the importance of also addressing responsible cat ownership and the need to do that in conjunction with a TNR ordinance. Querner implored the DAB to reject this misguided and misinformed ordinance and to consider the addendums in Common Sense as credible, supported suggestions to complete a lacking TNR policy. The seventh speaker (name and address not shared) spoke against the ordinance. He shared he attended multiple ACAB meetings during the development of this ordinance and felt as though the ACAB Chair and certain members of the board not only shut down public input, but also suppressed input from board members with differing views. He said a lawyer representing Friends of Felines was present at the meetings and the ACAB Chair deferred to this lawyer to dictate the ordinance. He shared there was a significant emphasis on ensuring the ordinance state there is no ownership of the cats—language meant to absolve caregivers of any responsibility for damages inflicted by feral cats or nuisance issues caused by the colonies they are sustaining. He shared the repeated sentiment that this ordinance infringes on individual rights by not accounting for property damage, diminished quality of life, and health concerns related to nearby feral cat colonies. This speaker believes the ordinance was heavily biased by individuals and groups wishing to push a TNR agenda based on their personal beliefs and/or profits and was not developed as a balanced ordinance meant to address the feral cat population. 11  District III Advisory Board Minutes for May 1, 2019 Discussion moved back to the DAB: A motion was made by David Robbins to approve ordinance on the basis that it is enforceable and an opportunity to gain control over the City’s feral cat population. There was no second motion, so the motion died. DAB: I agree there are some enforceable aspects to this ordinance, but I do not support returning cats to neighborhoods due to nuisance issues. DAB: City ordinance states you can only have four cats in your home. Why would we want to allow more than four in a colony? We know enforcement by Animal Control is going to be a problem. A motion to table the discussion until next month was made by Ron Tracy and seconded by David Robbins. CM Clendenin encouraged the group to make an up/down motion. Jared Cerullo and Cindy Miles both made a substitute motion to deny the ordinance on the basis that the ordinance lacks enforceability and protection for property owners and belief that cats should not be returned to neighborhoods due to nuisance problems. 12