Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Animal Care Advisory Committee - 09/15/2011LITYSECCRETARrsol C 0 5 2011 �,t� a•r• so City of Cor us �Chsti City of Corpus Christi MINUTES OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI ANIMAL CONTROL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Nueces County Public Health District Education Room, 2626 Holly Rd The Minutes for September 15th, 2011 Members Present: Bill Schroeder, Cheryl Martinez, Barbara Beynon, Samantha Person, Heather Tarnooki and Dr. Barbara Whitlock Members Absent: Dr. Nina Sisley (The following staff members were presents Larry Bias, Elizabeth Hundley and Dr. Thomas House Guests: Mary Clemones, Anthony Clemones, CourtneyTurnlund, Lila Bridges and Richard Bridges Call to Order: Mr, Schroeder called the meeting to order at 12:42 2. Discussion and possible A proval of Minutes from August 18 2411 Ms. Martinez made a motion to approve the minutes. Ms. Martinez 21d the motion, all in favor motion passed. 3. Discussion and possible Approval of Absences from August 18th, 2011 Mr. Schroeder noted that Ms. Beynon was absent from the August 2011 meeting; Ms. Beynon informed the committee she was work related. Ms, Person made a motion to approve Ms. Beynons' absence, Ms, Martinez2 "d the motion, all favor motion passed. 4. Discussion of Current Zoonosis Repo Mr. Schroeder noted that the Zoonosis report was attached for viewing. Mr. Bias informed the committee there was 1 bat positive for rabies, The citizen had called us and his cat was sitting near the bat and with the positive test his cat his recommended to be quarantined for 45 days, Mr, Schroeder also noted that he had brought a bat in and it was negative, Ms. Beynon noted that at the last meeting there was a discussion on cases in Central and North Texas for rabies but it's not in this report. Mr, Bias replied no. 5. Discussion of Current Shelter Report Mr. Bias informed the committee for the shelter report for the month of August as follows; for incoming animals a total of 596 were dropped off; 294 brought in from the field for a total of 890. This month we relocated a red boa pythons and an alligator to Parks and Wild life. There was aiso 32 adoptions; 6 rescues to GCHS and The Cattery rescued 15 cats; 50 return to owner; 6 died in kennel; 655 euthanized, 70 bite cases and the total calls for service was 1.629 for a average of 54 per day. Mr. Bias also added the numbers for the violation report was 8 failure to restrain, 4 failure to vaccinate, 4 failure to register, 2 for the failure of carelkeeping of animals and 2 for others for livestock issues. 6. Discussion of Current Clinic Report Mr. Bias informed the committee that there was a total of 112 for the public and the shelter animals were 8 dog neuters, 10 dog spays, and 1 cat spay. The total for the month of August was 131. We had one animal that died in surgery. Dr. House added that it was euthanized at the request of the owner, The cat was resuscitated and slow to come back, its owner was an EMS technician and was observing the animal and had his request we euthanized it. It was a stray that he had brought in. Ms. Martinez asked what Died PT SX mean. Mr. Bias replied that it was the cat that died from the surgery. Ms. Martinez also asked what the numbers from Vet. Mr. Bias replied that he would check with Chameleon, Ms. Tarnsoki added that it could be from the same cat. Ms. Martinez also asked about the 29 cats, Mr, Blas replied that he went thru all the records after seeing this, staff explained that when we relocate its possible that some of our new staff may not have outcomed properly when moving the animal, A brief discussion was held on the importance or not of having both the old and new percentage reports at the meeting. Mr. Blas added that there are a lot of new things being implemented right now and we are now going by zip code also, Ms, Person had helped with that. Discussion and review on the Breeders Permit A general discussion was held on the breeders permit. Ms. Martinez added that the biggest problem is the back yard breeding and had done thorough research. Ms, Martinez asked Ms. Hundley that.we can't.be specific.on.the breednin Texas. _ Ms, Hundley.replied that is true, we cannot legislate by type or breed. Ms, Martinez wanted to add that you cannot sell or give away in parking lots now, this is already an ordinance. What is acceptable is a dog show or pet stores. Ms. Hundley added that you can sell from your home or put an ad in the newspaper or online. Ms. Hundley that in order to in the whereas under preambles is to limit the number of litters a dog can whelp within a year, requiring a dog reach the age of at least eight weeks before it is sold, limiting the sale of dogs to persons holding a breeder's permit, unless they are a governmental agency. This would restrict the sale of dogs on someone's property, whether or not we entertain that, Dr. House added that he felt they should be required to micro -chip the animal and legally able to reproduce, Ms. Martinez verifying that it would be the breeding dogs. Dr. House yes but not necessarily the puppies; in the event you have someone with 6 animals but only 1 is licensed to reproduce, Ms. Beynon informed the committee that she is opposed to the breeder permit and feel that the City doesn't need to get involved, there is way too much to catch up on with too little staff. This was brought to council 10 years ago and it was agreed that the City had to do a better out- reach on public education of spay and neutering. Keeping their dogs at home in the yard where they belong instead of on the street reproducing. Nothing has been done from the City's point of view, will continue to be opposed to the breeders permit, If the committee continues to pursue it its fine but will still be opposed and be voting no. Ms. Martinez added that at this time she wasn't sure what fee would charge, there are some areas that charge up to $500.00 for the permit. The committee made a decision to talk about this at the next meeting, Ms. Martinez added that it is a problem and we want it there to discourage the owners that abuse and continually breed so they can sell on the side of the road. There was one in another state where the owner could get an exemption from their veterinarian stating that the owner is a responsible breeder; not sure if we would be able to do this in Texas. Mr, Blas added that when he worked in Arlington Animal Control if the female was in season it was required to be inside the home or structure, Dr. House wanted to add that from an Animal Control stand point most of the pregnant dogs in the kennels most of them are not pure bred. The committee had a brief discussion on responsible breeding and how young you see some animals pregnant. Mr. Schroeder asked that if an owner states their animal is pure bred do you have to have papers on that animal. Ms. Martinez replied no. Ms. Hundley stated that from a legal perspective and to follow up on a comment Ms, Martinez made where it says; 'the regulation of backyard breeders will safeguard and promote dog breeding by responsible pet owners who sell, adopt, barter or transfer puppies in a manner that does not add to the population of abandoned or neglected dogs. The purpose of this is to regulate as puppies that are going out and later because someone cannot afford to keep the animal or for other reasons become abandoned or neglected. The puppies that are sold, bartered or traded having a microchip requirement may address that, that's not in here, When you are applying for the breeders permit to follow up on the discussion on mixed breeds, this doesn't address whether you have to have it because your dog is a pure bred or not. The proposed ordinance 2011 -4017 on the 3 pg under the dog breeding permit application I didn't see a complete description of the dog proposed to breed including breed or mix of breed. Ms. Martinez added that there was a place where if it was a responsible breeder that would be an exemption where the vet would sign off as the owner being a responsible breeder and this is something we can discuss if you would like. Ms. Hundley added that from a legal perspective the committee would need to wrestle with what would define a responsible breeder. Ms. Person asked if this could include cats. Ms. Martinez replied yes. The committee made the decision to discuss this item further at the next meeting. Discussion and Recommendation for the Feral Cat Colony Permit Ms. Person noted that the staff was going to be bringing back information to the committee. Mr. Blas informed the committee he has read the information and apologized that he has not met with legal yet but will be done before the next meeting. Mr. Blas added that he wasn't sure on the total of the amount for 20 in the colony and from research felt that we could do 15. Ms, Beynon added that from a prior public comment questioned the amount for the colony. Why is it that an owner is allowed 6 but allow 20 for the colony? Ms. Person replied that these are wild not domesticated pets. Ms. Beynon asked what allows the discrepancy in the difference in the numbers. Why do we allow 100 % outdoor cats to have more than indoorloutdoor cats? Ms. Person replied that there is a huge problem and we can alter as many as we can, Ms. Beynon asked what the definition of who is notified of the neighbors. Ms. Person replied that it would be the surrounding adjacent neighbors, Ms. Beynon said she wouldn't like a colony in her neighborhood than they would be coming on to her property and defecating. Ms. Beynon added that when an owner of the cat colony moves then there is an emergency contact it's not explained well, Ms. Person replied it states it has to be transferred to another person. Ms. Beynon asked what happens if it doesn't get transferred and it takes up to 12 months to get someone when would the City come out and take care of the cats, Ms. Person replied that the city can come out at any time and if there is not a caretaker that can take care of them. Ms. Beynon also asked how it affects the value of your property, Ms, Person replied that right now there are cats around the property and not fixed and breeding destroying things; this will help to reduce the amount of feral cats in the area, Ms. Beynon noted that the City had a pilot program for altering cats and we were supposed to receive results on how that went. Mr. Blas asked if this was at A &M. Ms. Beynon replied that here were funds from Petco or Petsmart grant that funded this. Ms. Taube informed the committee that there were certain areas in the city where this was done and A &M did bring animals over during this time and the funds ran out October 2010, Dr. House added that Dennis Noble also assisted in this, Mr, Blas read under "Enforcement" item # 2, "Feral cat colony cats that are trapped on private property more than 3 limes or otherwise cause a continued nuisance will be reported to the registered caretaker. Mr. Blas added that if the cats become a nuisance and they are reported we will enforce the issue as such. Ms. Beynon asked if trap a feral cat I will call for you to pick up if it's scanned and realize its notched ear you will know where it came from. Mr, Blas asked if there is an issue, the enforcement can give us leaner, Why are you catching the cat, is it defecating on the. property,.. being a.nuisance, we would report back to the.caretaker and..let them..know we could revoke the permit o. solve the ... issue. Ms, Beynon asked how does the City find out about the 3 times and is the land owner trapping the cats, am I going to call you every time. Mr. Blas replied yes. Ms. Hundley added that from a legal perspective we have a problem on the books right now and from 2005 or 2006 was a provision to allow the free roaming of cats, if this enforcement provision that if you trap, her example of a properly owner, the purpose of the discussion it's a community proposal so it should be viewed community perspective and have 2 comments on this. The first being the feral cat colony cats caught more than 3 times on private properly will be reported to the registered care taker, the care taker will be provided 30 days to resolve the issue and in the event is unable to resolve the problem the City of Corpus Christi may seize the animal. If we have free roaming on the books now and the cat travels across the street 3 times and is trapped the cat would be removed from the cat colony permit, If they have a permit would be revised to eliminate that cat. There is a provision that has the free roaming of cats, if a cat travels across the street and there is a complaint that your cat keeps coming over and defecating please keep your cat away, unless that owner can keep the cat away, it says 3 cats, it doesn't say the same cat 3 cats trapped on another private property will constitute a nuisance. There are 2 others things, on the transfer of the caregiver the statement alone doesn't address "transfer of caregiver can be made during the leave of the permit for no additional fee ". If the permit is issued by a governmental entity the City to an individual caregiver, if that caregiver than moves the only statement in this thing is the transfer of the caregiver can be made for no additional fee, It doesn't say how or if the new caregiver has to fill out an application process or not. This will be for the committee to address and this is just to review and discuss. The other conflict with what we have on the books right now requires every cat be 4 months of age to be vaccinated by state law, registered by city law and spayed or neutered, This proposes to allow the city a permit to a caregiver for up to 20 cats that upon issue and identification the caregiver will have 4 months to complete the requirements of registration and rabies for the cats. The committee may want to consider a graduated period where a caregiver is taking the cats (suggested) vaccinates and registers say 5 or 10 cats at a time before they are actually issued the colony permit. I am trained from a legal perspective to identify in this proposal how we would issue a permit for 20 cats recognizing on the cats to already have vaccinations and rabies to be included in a colony and the caregiver is being giving 4months to accomplish what is required to harbor those animals now. Ms. Person replied that we did that because if they go thru and pay what if they don't get the permit. We agreed on the 4 months because it may take time to capture them, Ms. Beynon asked if it could be upon completing the 6 1 h cat catching, alter, chip and release then you will start on # 7 and then apply for the permit, Ms. Hundley replied that that could be one way to obtain a balance on how to keep animals and allow a colony permit; generally it appears that feral cat colony permits have come about as a regulation where there are institutional or large refineries, companies and universities, they have a natural feral cat population, This hereto be used in a residential setting its not limited to commercial keepers. That is information for the committee to address from a real perspective how this will apply when you try to enact it. Mr. Schroeder asked about the current rule on free roaming; would this need to be addressed again. Ms. Hundley replied that because this provision allows your 6 cats to be free roaming but these feral cat colony cats that are trapped, any of the colony cats, maybe it should be trapping the same cat each time, it could be territorial in a area where it is not wanted or desired. Ms. Martinez asked with the free roaming and trapped 3 times, what does that have to do with the free roaming cat because that has nothing to do with the feral cat colony with a permit. Ms, Hundley replied that one cat migrating across the street is being viewed as a free roaming animal owned by an individual, properly permitted and vaccinated at the time. The other cat is crossing into the yard, it's considered a feral cat colony cat, granted it's going to be a free roaming, cats are going to roam. One is to put trying to put each on a cat trap, it's becoming a nuisance because it's been trapped 3 times by the property owner, that cat will still be considered free roaming but it won't be that his cat Is subject to the same trapping that if his cat gets trapped 3 times across the street being considered for seizure whereas the feral cat colony would be considered for seizure. Mr. Schroeder asked that with the colony will they be allowed to replace one that they lose. Ms. Hundley replied that with property interest under the care and keeping of animals may allow a cat that dies as a person to possibly replace. Ms. Martinez reiterated to verify by 'trapping the same cat 3 times ", in case the caregiver moves to be able to transfer over to another person they must meet all the requirements. Mr. Schroeder asked if there was an item where there is a time frame for them to notify the city if they are moving. Ms, Hundley replied that after Mr. Blas reviews the documentation he will come back with the recommendation. Ms. Beynon wanted to point out that the reason why people are here is about this ordinance is because it affects their homes and how we want to be treated as home owners. Ms. Person wanted to point out it doesn't' give the people to go out and get 20 cats, this is to fix the 20 cats that are already there. It's reducing the amount of cats that are born and reducing the amount in your neighborhood that could possibly be devaluing your home. Ms. Beynon wanted o add that perception is the key about how people see things, We also talked about when a caretaker leaves, what happens when a neighbor who approves moves and the new neighbor comes in and doesn't want it. Will there be a provision to settle the disagreement with a new owner or the current one who changes their mind. Ms. Martinez replied that it would be a nuisance, most of the people are already tired and the cats are already causing issues breeding. If someone new comes in they will do a nuisance complaint, Ms. Beynon replied that if she was a caregiver and I was taking care good care and someone comes in and wants me to take them away. Ms, Tamoski wanted to point out that with the way things are right now there is nothing to back up the person who is now complaining and this would be a step forward. Ms. Beynon added that if we go 1hru it again, because legal will be looking for definitions and the language. Ms. Hundley added that along with the process the committee has to think about the issuance permit but the revocation of the permit, voluntary surrender; listening to the discussion there are 2 situations that are not addressed here that the committee should consider addressing. What if the caregiver wants to voluntary surrender the permit, what then happens to those animals that are notched and fixed do we ignore them. What if a caregiver is moving away, there is no one that wants to transfer it over and take care it is incumbent that the caregiver should there be a voluntary surrender or expiration of the permit and the caregiver has the obligation to bring those animals in. Ms. Person wanted to add that she has read hundreds of feral cat ordinances and none of them were that complicated. Ms. Hundley stated again the reality that a caregiver can no longer care for the cats or desires to surrender the permit what happens. Ms. Martinez added that if they surrender and the replacement doesn't' want to they call animal control. Mr. Schroeder asked for this to be discussed at the next meeting and for staff to bring any additions or correction from our meeting today. 9. Discussion and recommendation on ordinance amendment for the keeping of urban chickens Mr. Bias provided a copy o the staff recommendation for this ordinance amendment for the keeping of urban chickens. Mr. Bias wanted to point out the changes under item # C. (1). The number of domestic fowl kept on the premises cannot exceed seven (7); (2) The fowl are kept or used for egg production purposes oniy, with consumption of the eggs by the keeper; (3) No profit or business may be derived from the keeping or use of the fowl or eggs by the keeper. (4) The wings of the fowl must be kept clipped to prevent flight; (5) The fowl must be provided with a coop, and the dimensions of the coop must not exceed five (5) foot width by five (5) foot height by (5) foot length; (6) The coop must be completely surrounded by a six -foot (6) high enclosure {chicken pen) that provides adequate space for the fowl to roam and does not exceed a maximum dimensional size of 20 x 20 square feet. (7) The chicken pen may not be located closer than twenty -five (25) feet to any existing dwelling or business building owned, used, or maintained by any person other than the keeper. (8) The keeper must maintain the fowl, coop, and chicken pen in such a manner that prevents odor, health or sanitation problems; (9) Any sudden affliction, illness, or death occurring to any of the fowl must be immediately reported by the keeper to the local health authority and to the Animal Control Division; and (10) Roosters may not be present or kept on the premises. Mr. Schroeder asked with the pen if it included a top, Mr. Bias replied it's the fence itself because the wings are clipped. Ms. Beynon pointed out that the 20 x 20 is an incorrect measurement, it should be linear feet. Ms. Martinez asked that since we are discussing if we are allowed to have the public person who is here to about this topic. Ms. Hundley replied yes you can, if the committee is discussing an item and possible to entertain discussion from someone in the audience you may. Ms. Tumlund was pleased with the new proposal of the ordinance and talked with Ms. Hundley and Mr. Bias about our 25 it rule and we should be able to meet the requirements. The dwelling is the house, mine is backed up to a shed in the other yard not their residential home. At this time our chickens are free roaming and we have enclosed our garden and if we are able to use the same which is chicken wire but not 6 ft, we already clip their wings. Could the 6 ft rule could be changed to 4 or 5. Ms. Martinez stated that she agreed with this since she has taken care of houses that have chickens and they do not have 6 ft and they do not get out because of being clipped wings. Mr. Bias agreed with the change of the footage as long as the wings are clipped. Dr. House asked if there should be language with those that do get out of the pen. Ms. Hundley stated that she understood the vets concern and reviewing this it's up to the committee there is nothing here that requires the chickens to be kept in the pen that was part of the purpose and up to the committee to make a motion to amend based on removing sq ft to linear feet. Ms. Tumlund commented that in regards to the smell whether than confining them at all times to a coop. Keep in mind the smaller you make the confinement will build up of the matter and may smell in that case and in the matter being in the grass for so long it will decompose into your soil. Ms. Martinez added that if they get out it will be an issue; even with the ones I have taken care of there is no smell but they are free roaming. If they get out we would seize the chickens. Ms. Hundley pointed out that with the committee's consideration the committees based on the comments the chicken pen requirement would be eliminated but this applies to homeowners with or without a boundary fence. Free roaming I presume is still within a fence on the boundary of the property. The committee would need to address if they are going to remove the requirement for a chicken pen or reconsider a requirement for urban chickens can only be kept on a property that is fully fenced. For dogs we have a secure and substantial fence and generally with definition whether or not that's what you want to use or not. Mr. Schroeder asked if there is a secure fence does that eliminate you from having the 20 x 20 enclosed fences. Ms. Turnlund wanted to add that there are some houses that do not have a fence surrounding their property, maybe it could be said that a pen of this size is required around the coups area for those that don't have a fence around their property. Ms. Hundley added that you would need to word it either or. Mr. Bias recommended that you don't do this because with no secure fence around the property the dogs will come and get thru the chicken pen. Ms. Turnlund wanted to clarity that she will need to have a chicken pen within her own fence surrounding her property. Mr. Bias informed the committee that if you can word this to where if I a person doesn't have a fence they need to build a fence. Ms. Hundiey pointed out that they way it's worded it applies to a property that has a boundary fence or doesn't have one, the keeping of chickens would require a coop as a structure surrounded by a chicken pen that doesn't' exceed 20 x 20 If whether or not your property Is fenced. If you have an either requirement it would say if you don't have a preliminary boundary fence on any portion of your property you are required to have a coop and pen. If you have the boundary fence you are only required to have coop. Mr. Bias added that he preferred the wooden fence because its out of sight out of mind. Ms. Martinez added that if someone has chickens and doesn't have secure fencing and my dogs get in and get them it's going to be their own fault. Ms. Tamsoki added that the wording is there because they need to assume some of the obligation and responsibility to protect the chickens. Ms. Martinez made a motion to recommend that the coop with the 6 ft secure and substantial fence around it. Ms Hundley wanted to point out you need to have a minimum height for the chicken pen or a standard. The committee agrees for the standard 6 ft. Ms. Beynon 21 the motion all in favor motion passed. Ms. Beynon asked if this will come back to us next month or does it go to council whenever they get it put on the agenda. Ms. Hundley replied that it would go to council from here. These are staffs recommendation. Ms. Beynon asked if the committee could he notified of the date for council. Mr. Bias replied yes, 10. Discussion and possible action on the annual election of officers Mr. Schroeder informed the committee it was time for the re- election of officers. Ms. Beynon nominated Mr. Schroeder as chairman, Ms. Martinez 2 1d the motion all in favor motion passed Ms. Tarnoski nominated Ms. Martinez as vice - chairman, Ms. Person 2 1d the motion all in favor motion passed. 11. Discussion and possible action on the ordinance amendment for non city traps It was noted that the item was put on since we do not pickup the trapped opossums and we were looking at charging ahem for pickup it would need to be removed. Mr. BI as stated that as of now we are not picking up the opossums in the public's own trap. We do rent out traps with a $50 deposit and a $10 fee for the weekly rental fee. Ms. Beynon wanted clarification that you no longer pick up the opossums that are in privately owned traps but you do pick them up in a city rented trap. Ms. Martinez reiterated the ordinance amendment is going to bejust that, no pick up non city traps. Mr. Bias added that the only thing we would be charging for are the citizens who are trapping cats and raccoons, we pick up those and skunks. Since we have eliminated picking up the opossums are trapped calls have gone way down. Ms. Martinez asked if we could trap a fee for the trapped cats, skunks and raccoons. Mr. Bias replied that people will ask why we aren't charging the fee for the opossums too. Mr. Schroeder added that we. are .not picking up the opossums.at alL -Mr.. Bias. reiterated .that.some. may. be..willing to pay the.feeto.. pick up. the. opossums ................_ __ ...._ ......_.. Ms. Taronski asked how the monies would be collected. Mr. Bias replied that would be the biggest issue. The committee asked if it could be put on the utility bill. Ms. Hundley replied that utility service is a separate bill. Ms. Martinez asked how the numbers have dropped since we do not pick up the opossums in their own traps. Ms. Beynon quoted the numbers in the monthly calls and asked if that would all be from the trap calls. Mr. Bias replied the majority of them yes. Ms. Martinez asked if we still have one officer that picks them up. Mr. Bias replied that it's separated between all the officers. Mr. Bias also added that it's a matter of educating the public and the calls he has received he has explained the priorities we have and with budgeting. Mr. Schroeder asked if we were to look into a billing service for this. Ms. Tarnoski added that if it's a rental property the owner may not want it. Ms. Hundley added that it would be the utility account holder that would authorize the charge. Mr. Schroeder noted that it can be looked into with other options. Mr. Bias informed the committee that he would look into all the options. 12. Public Comments Mr. Clemones asked about the trapping and when we pick up where does the $10 come in. Mr. Blas explained the process of renting a trap; the fee is $10 weekly rental fee. Mr. Clemones added this is for non city traps. Mr. Bias replied that this is what we are reviewing that now. Dr.House added that the discussion began on charging when we use to pick up in non city traps and has been a change in policy so at this time it's not being done now. Ms. Beynon pointed out that we do pick up non- own traps with raccoons', skunks and cats; has the website been updated with this information. Mr. Bias added that it started on August Bch and was put on the website. Mr. Clemones wanted to know how many colonies can be in a neighborhood. Ms. Person replied as many as the surrounding neighbors would approve. Mr. Clemones added that if it's a large neighborhood there could be as many as allowed if you have 20 per colony; that would be out of control with that many when you have the urinating and the feces allover, Mr. Schroeder informed Mr. Schroeder that we will be addressing this item again. Mr. Clemones asked who would be responsible if a cat/cats scratches a child /adult or dog. Is it the city responsible since it may become an ordinance or is it the caregiver of the colony? Mr. Schroeder informed Mr. Clemones that we are still going to be addressing the issue and your concerns will be looked at. Ms. Martinez asked about the time limit on the people speaking per person. Ms. Hundley replied that the committee can discuss a time of rule at another session because it's not on the agenda. For the benefit of the public because of the Texas open meetings act there is a provision on the agenda that tells you what the limitations of the committee members are. They do want to hear your concerns but are not allowed to respond. Mr. Schroeder informed Mr. Clemones that it hasn't gone to city council yet. Mr. Clemones expressed his concern if this colony permit goes thru with all the animals you could have in the area and think of the amount of feces and urine and any damages they could do to ones property. If there is a flea outbreak on my property is it the city or the caregiver who is responsible. Mr. Schroeder replied that we would look at all these issues under consideration. Mrs. Bridges asked what to do if one of the chickens comes into my yard and does any damage. Mr. Bias replied that you can call Animal Control and we send someone out. Mr. Bridges noted that with the cat colony the number is at 20, how this cures a problem. The committee advised him with the spay and neutering done it will reduce the urine and the population control. Mr. Bridges was concerned about bringing more cats, Ms. Person pointed out that it's the ones already there. Mr. Schroeder added that it will be a requirement for those already there to be fixed. Is it the trapped feral cats the one in this? Mr. Schroeder replied the statistics on the report are the ones that in the euthanized. 13. Identify items to be placed on next agenda The committee wanted the following items to be placed on the agenda for the month of October. Discussion and review for time allowed for public comments; discussion, review and possible recommendation for the breeders permit; discussion, review and possible recommendation for the ordinance amendment for non city traps and discussion, review and possible recommendation for the cat colony permit. 14. Adjournment Ms. Martinez made a motion to adjourn, Ms. Person 2nd the motion all in favor motion passed. 2:35 pm