Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Animal Care Advisory Committee - 10/20/201133 City of Corpus = Christi 010 8111 Cam Serw DEC 0 5 2011 CITYSFCRETARY,S OFFICE L City of orpus 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 October 20 1 h,2011 Members Present: Bill Schroeder, Cheryl Martinez, Barbara Beynon, Samantha Person, Dr. Nina Sisley and Dr. Barbara Whitlock Members Absent: Heather Tarnoski (The following staff members were present) Larry Bias, Elizabeth Hundley and Dr, Thomas House Guests: Call to order: Sheila Cudd Mr. Schroeder called the meeting to order at 12:30 2. Discussion and possible Approval of Minutes from September 15th, 2011 Dr. Whitlock amended to minutes to reflect her as absent not present. Ms. Beynon noted on pg 1 par 6 should read; Mr. Bias informed the committee that there were a total of 112 surgeries for the public and a total of 8 dog neuters, 10 dog spays and 1 cat spay. Ms. Martinez made a motion to approve the minutes with the amendment, Ms. Person 2 nd the motion all in favor motion passed. 3. Discussion and possible Approval of Absences from September 15th, 2011 Mr. Schroeder noted that Dr. Whitlock and Dr. Sisley were absent from the September 2011 meeting; Dr. Whitlock informed the committee she was out due to, Dr. Sisley informed the committee that she was unaware of the meeting, Ms, Martinez made a motion to approve Dr. Whitlock and Dr. Sisley's' absence, Ms. Person 2 the motion, all in favor motion passed. 4. Discussion of Current Zoonosis Report Mr. Schroeder noted that the Zoonosis report was attached for viewing. Dr. Whitlock noted that there was one bat listed as positive and Mr. Bias confirmed as such— Ms, Beynon asked that with the bats that are listed all show as positive, Mr. Bias replied yes. Ms, Beynon asked the ones in Nueces County were any of them in the City? Mr, Bias replied 3 of them, 1 was exposed to a cat, 5. Discussion of Current Shelter Repo Mr. Bias informed the committee for the shelter report for the month of September as follows; for incoming animals a total of 571 were dropped off; 271 are from the field for a total of 842. There was also 23 adoptions; 3 rescues; 80 return to owner; 2 died in kennel; 661 were euthanized, 71 bite cases and the total calls for service was 1,629 for an average of 54 per day, Mr, Blas also added the numbers for the violation report was 8 failure to restrain, 6 failure to vaccinate, 4 failure to register, 12 for failure to restrain and 1 for failure of humane animal care, Ms, Martinez asked about the calls where the majority of them come from, on the report it is showing calls not from the call center. Mr. Bias replied that it is from the call center and is aware of what is showing on the report and that will be fixed. Mr. Bias informed the committee of the proposal for the new hours for the shelter. We will be open on Mondays from 8 am to 6 pm and will be moving our clinic to the morning from 8:30 to 11:30; Tuesday thru Friday will be open from 8 am to 6 pm and Saturdays will be from 8 am to 5 pm. We will continue to have drop off for live animals from 1 pm to closing each day. With the new changes will be more people friendly. With the new hours for the clinic this will help out in the summer when it's hot so they are not standing out waiting. Ms. Martinez asked with the hours changing how will this affect people coming in to try and claim their animals. Mr. Bias replied that there are many times being here between 6 — 7pm and most of the time it is slow, but we will now be open on Monday. Mr. Bias also informed the committee that he had done research and we are looking into possible billing for people when they come into the shelter and find their animal here and do not have all the money to pay. It will be placed on their utility bill. We feel that this will help lower the euthanasia rate of the shelter. Ms, Martinez asked if it would be the whole total or part. Mr, Bias replied that if they pay a portion the remainder could be put on the bill. Ms. Martinez asked if they are going to need to be considered low income. Mr. Bias replied that if people live out of town they will not be able to do this, living in town it can be added to the utility bill. Mr. Bias added that it will all be on a case to case basis. Ms. Martinez asked if this will be advertised, Mr, Bias replied no. Mr. Schroeder asked if this had to go to council. Mr. Bias replied no. Mr. Sias informed the committee that we had been getting a lot of calls on female dogs in season and looking at the possibility of the dogs not being outside during this time. If the committee has any suggestions please let me know. Mr. Bias asked Ms. Martinez with the breeders permit would you do something like this? Ms. Martinez replied that if we could get thru it. Dr. Whitlock asked what the concern Is.- Mr. Blas replied that they are attracting the male dogs wanting to get out; I had a call from a customer and the lady stated that she had 2 dogs trying to get thru to the fence and when I asked what was going on she had a dog in season. I had asked if she could put the dog up and she replied no why I should have to. Mr. Bias explained the possibility of why; so if anyone has any ideas please advise. The caller I was speaking with wanted to know what rights she would have if the dogs came thru into her yard and impregnated her dog. Mr. Bias added that we will contact owner about dogs being stray out of their yard but it would hard to tell the charge why with probable cause. It would be a civil matter. Ms. Beynon replied that her concern is with the people that have their dogs tied out and the in season animal. In Texas your home is your property, when I see problems with dogs digging around in my yard I do things to prevent them from getting in. 6. Discussion of C urrent Clinic Report Mr. Bias informed the committee that there were a total of 100 for the public and 23 shelter animals for a total of 123. 7. Discussion and review of time allowed for public comments Mr. Schroeder opened the floor of for discussion on the time allowed for public comments. €}r. Whitlock pointed out that 3 minutes may be short. Ms. Person asked what City Council does. Dr. Whitlock replied 3 minutes, Ms, Beynon added that is for items not on the agenda. The last time we had people that spoke longer but was in reference to items on the agenda and fell that was okay. When there's a large council meeting have seen very few meeting where they have restricted someone speaking about items on the agenda and limit the 3 minutes. Ms. Hundley added that no governing body in Texas has to provide any public comment, which is the absolute law. There is no requirement under the Texas open meeting act to require public comment. The rule of thumb though is county municipalities and other governing bodies do allow public comments because they are governing that community in which they want the feedback. With that said public comment now comes at the end of the agenda meetings or 4:00 whichever comes first; it is limited to 3 minutes items not on the agenda. Public hearings are the only items on the consent regular agenda for any other matters having cases where public comment is required because it is a public hearing. Some items require public hearing and they ask for public comment, it is the practice of our city council to ask for public comment before they pass an item. It's entirely up to the committee whether you have public comment; it appears it's been on your agenda for some time. There hasn't been any rule of thumb set and this item was posted for possible action to enact that rule so I ask that if the committee wants to consider a length of time whether you adopt the 3 minutes like other boards and committees have.or city council with whatever length of time. Then you can come back next month with a motion to approve that rule for this body whatever it might be and placement on the agenda. Dr. Whitock wanted to clarify that with council they ask for public comment before they vote on an item on the agenda and don't limit the time. Ms, Hundley replied not on the actual items; they can shut down and have shut down a speaker before because they called for a first and second discussion then ask for the public comments and listen to it and generally short. It's usually for or against and why. Ms. Martinez felt that with items not on the agenda felt that 3 minutes was fair, items on agenda you let them speak where if you need to cut them off. Dr. Whitlock added that when we ask for public comment if we give a time limit on that and them we can talk about the time for items on the agenda. Mr, Schroeder asked that when we discuss an item and go to make a motion is that up for public comments. Ms. Hundley replied that it's not open unless the chair person opens it to the public, The practice has been back and forth but not consistent. Mr. Schroeder asked then at that time could we limit to whatever lime frame specified. Ms. Beynon added that she has seen many people talk about the one subject at council meeting which can go very long; that is the few time where I have seen they say you have sa much time to talk. Ms. Hundley added that it's been said to please limit your comments to 3 minutes which is the public comment and also to speak about another matter that has already been brought up that you agree with them. The committee agreed a 3 minute rule and with items on the agenda would be up to the chair person to set the time at their discretion. Dr, Whitlock felt that we should add a lime limit even though it's not the typical way the council does it. If we tell them in the beginning that you are limited to this amount of time; then if they want to continue then the chair has the decision to say continue, Mr. Schroeder added that we would put it on the agenda for next month. Discussion, review and possible recommendation of the breeders permit Ms. Hundley pointed out that this item is not ready for the committee to review and possible recommendation but there is further discussion that is warranted, In working on the breeders permit item have already noted to ask the committee about in season versus out of season and if out of season, if in season breeding animals subject to a permit would be required to be kept indoors or in a confined secure location. That could be a topped kennel in the back yard or it could be the garage or within the confines of the house. And from the earlier discussion and I already had this question on here as to the committee's recommendation in the draft ordinance. Dr. Whitlock asked if it was in here already. Ms, Hundley replied no. Dr. Whitlock suggested that we require a run outside where it has the top on it. Ms. Martinez added that most of the packs of animals you see there is a female dog. Mr. Schroeder asked Mr. Bias the customer he was talking with was it a private breeder or someone who had a dog with a one time. Mr. Blas replied a customer breeding a dog. Ms, Beynon asked if it was pure bred. Mr. Blas replied was told it was purebred daschunds. Ms. Hundley added that would not effect that, it is only on the discussion on the breeders permit whether or not a in season animal should be kept inside a structure. If they have a permit and they are breeding the animals it's keeping your unfixed female. Ms. Martinez added that you will see more people breeding their "designer" dogs too and what's going to constitute a responsible breeder. Ms. Hundley asked if this is going to pertain to cats as well. Ms. Martinez replied yes. Dr. Whitlock also says that we will not be giving a breeders permit to pit bulls, because there are too many, Ms. Hundley replied that we can look if our permitting scheme regulates by breed. Ms. Martinez added that the possibility of people asking for exemptions on some of the breeders yes or no, Ms, Hundley added that she cannot make any recommendations on the draft as it appears right now but there are 2 exemptions for dogs which are law enforcement and service animals. Is this something that the committee would still want to uphold? Ms. Martinez replied no, most enforcement and service dogs are usually already altered, Dr. Whitlock asked that with this breeders permit if an owner doesn't intend to breed do they need to get a breeders permit Ms. Martinez replied no. Ms, Beynon mentioned the customer that Mr. Blas spoke with that says she wasn't paying to breed her. Ms, Martinez added that would more fall under a mandatory spay neuter, Ms. Martinez asked if this is something that we could put in, Ms. Hundley replied no it's strictly for a permit for dog breeding. Mr. Blas noted that with the purpose of the breeders permit was to make responsible breeders legal and are you going forward to where if someone is not breeding to still encourage to spay or neuter. Ms. Martinez replied that would be under mandatory spay neuter, Mr. Blas asked it this had ever been discussed it and taken it to council. Ms. Martinez replied yes and we could do it again. Ms. Hundley asked the committee if breeder animals be required to have micro -chips as part of the permitting scheme, Ms. Martinez replied yes. Ms. Beynon added that she was looking under dog breeder permit content, it states under paragraph 6 a), an owner of an unaltered female dog shall not allow the whelping of more than 1 litter in any household within the permit year, is this per dog or per household, Ms. Beynon expressed her opinion since she is a responsible breeder, Ms. Hundley says it would be for each dog and whether or not the committee, any of this is up to subject to change, Everything is still on the table; staff and legal has not come to a final decision, Ms. Martinez added that each dog would be individually permitted. Ms. Hundley added that this particular draft required that no puppy or kitten could be sold, adopted, bartered or otherwise transferred until it was of 8 weeks of age, The common age is 6 weeks and how does the committee feel about 8 weeks, Dr. Beynon felt that it would be better for them to stay with "mom" until 8 weeks of age, Dr. Whitlock also added that she has heard that cats should stay with momma until 10 -12 weeks and that won't work. The committee agreed on the 6 weeks of age. Ms. Martinez added that anywhere a person advertises they will need to have their permit number. Ms. Martinez added that in reference to therapy dogs there isn't anything that says you have to show proof to someone that the dog is as such, Ms. Hundley added that there was a article that came out and under the cases in other cities that there has been a distinction made for purposes and constitution between a service animal having been trained to perform that function for someone that has a recognized disability whether its visual, audio, voice or other. There is a distinction between the service animal and a therapy animal, There was a case where a woman was claiming her pet Shetland as a therapy animal, what the court said the therapy wasn't happening at the time she was shopping therefore the animal provided no service to her benefit and wasn't allowed on the premises. The only part the government comes involved is where a law has been violated. A private property owner may not be able to question somebody or clarify whether a distinction on that animal providing a service or therapy. On private premises the person can be excluded whether it's a restaurant or a shopping center, whatever the case. Ms. Martinez added that there was someone claiming as a service dog bringing it on the airplane with her and got away with it. Ms, Hundley added that is what an exemption is for whether or not they are used for service animals or used in law enforcement in addition would they be required to have a breeders permit. Ms, Hundley asked if they wanted to remove this now and it can be put in later with an exemption for these purposes. The committee decided to leave (A) and takeout (B), Ms. Hundley added that part of A will be eliminated since council had previously supported the outlaw of a sale of animals in public places, a part of that will be deleted because it conflicts with existing law, Ms, Beynon noted within the breeder permit it reads that no person shall sell within in a public place without obtaining a dog breeders permit. What does my sealing a male dog have to do with getting a breeder permit to breed my female dog? Ms. Hundley replied that it would need to be struck because it doesn't make sense, Ms, Martinez added that they cannot sell within commercial areas anyway. Ms. Beynon added that if I am selling any dog I don't need a breeder permit to sell a dog I need it to breed the dog, Ms, Hundley added that there is already a requirement that the person who sells, barters, trade or exchange a dog have a breeder's permit of that bred animal. As an example if you are selling a 3 yr old male dog because you want to you could be required to have a breeders permit, Mr, Blas added that when you look at the ordinance it is a breeder permit, we could reword it to say if you are breeder you can only sell, Ms. Martinez stated that they would take it out, Ms. Hundley added that it requires all shelter animals to be spayed or neutered or a sterilization agreement is entered into it. It is common for any animal under 4 months, Ms. Hundley asked if there was a proposal from the committee without having a consensus; is there a recommendation on a permit fee for the breeder permit. The committee had a general discussion regarding the fee for the permit, Ms. Hundley wanted to add that the breeder permit is not limited to pure bred breeders. Ms. Beynon brought up the customer who has the problem with the dogs coming into her yard, you have people like her that will sell in the Ad Sack; how are we going to enforce those who may or may not have the breeders permit. Ms. Martinez added that the papers should not be allowing it without them having the permit. Ms, Hundley wanted to point out that you may have a publication that will check and one who won't. They will have the contact information on the owner whether its website or phone # and we can use that as enforcement. Mr. Schroeder pointed out that if it does go thru the public will need to be educated and understand what needs to be done. The committee agreed on $50.00 for the permit. Ms. Beynon pointed out on the 2 pg of the ordinance in sec # 3; there are people that will inspect the applicants for breeding, whelping, locations in compliance of the international property maintenance code. Ms. Hundley replied that the City of Corpus Christi hasn't yet adopted the international property maintenance code we are still operating under the Southern standard Housing Code which was adopted in 1976. Dr. Whitlock added that when they apply as part of the application that we have the right to inspect, Mr, BI as added that we can create a data base for the breeder's permit and a complaint is issued we can look it up and check on that residence. Dr. Whitlock asked about what happened with the microchip on the first impoundment. Mr. Bias replied that it is going to council on November 7t Ms. Beynon asked about the chickens. Mr. Bias replied that too. Ms. Beynon asked when we would have the draft back. Ms. Hundley replied next month. 9. Discussion, review and possi r on the ordinance amendment for non city traps A general discussion was held on the ordinance amendment for non city traps. Mr. Bias informed the committee that the ACM for the City, Oscar Martinez asked that we try to bring back the pick- up for opossums and told him yes. We would still like to implement the $10 fee. This is something we are also looking into this being billed on their utility bill. The committee asked about the item on the news and how they said there wouldn't be a charge to pick up. Mr, Bias replied that the news said that, I never said it was free. Mr. Bias explained the process of the rental where they pay the $10 for 7 days. Ms. Hundley pointed out to the committee that you are okay to discuss and make a recommendation because we have already reviewed the draft. The staff reviewed the draft; the committee would have voted to move forward but the program was cancelled due to budget so is there a copy of the ordinance here. Mr. Bias replied yes. After further discussion the committee agreed on $10 a week instead of per day for non city traps. Ms. Beynon asked how long someone keeps a trap when they rent them. Mr. Bias replied 1 week, Ms. Martinez asked if a citizen asks to keep it an extra week can they do that. Mr. Bias replied yes. Mr. Schroeder asked about how it could go on the utility bill. Ms. Hundley replied that could be confirmed by the city attorney who handles finance. Ms. Hundley added that if someone is renting the utility bill may not be in their name but the owner of the home. Ms. Beynon asked if this has to come back to us again for another vote or would it be sent to council as being amended, Ms. Hundley replied that you are going to give recommendations for an amendment and vote how it's changed, Dr. Whitlock made a motion to amend the effective date and the charge to $10 per week for non city traps, Ms. Martinez 2 1d the motion all in favor motion passed. Dr, Whitlock wanted to note that when council votes on this they will have to be willing to take the repercussions on this. Ms. Hundley replied that the council may not realize the differentiation between the traps that people rent and those who have their own traps. Ms. Beynon asked if there are figures on how many traps are picked up in non city traps in comparison to rented traps. Mr. Bias replied yes and will be ready when going to counci;. Ms. Hundley informed the committee that they will meet again before this item is on the agenda for council. 10. Discussion, review and possible recommendation on the Feral Cat Colony permit Ms. Hundley pointed out that is not ready for review and recommendation but more discussion if they choose to do so. Ms. Hundley also added that there is a disparity between the numbers and the limitations where the feral cat colonies might be. The draft proposal if for up to 20 cats; right now a person can keep 6 pets since feral cats are not utility animals not up against any limitations or utility purposes. The staff recommendation a tentative recommendation is 10 and this proposal is 20. Mr. Bias wanted to add after Dr. House and I discussed this topic and at first decided on 10 but we changed it to 20 that will help solve the problems. Dr. House added that the purpose of this program is to gather the cats together but manage what is there. Mr. Bias passed out the information on the trap- alter- release program; there were a total of 59 cats, 13 neuters, 21 spay and 15 we euthanized. Another question that was brought up on the feral cat was the FIV. There was one neighborhood had problems with FIV. Dr. House added that the numbers don't match on what you find on the literature on incidents rates, The 1406 Ray Dr, on this list we euthanized 9 and spayedlneutered 6. The majority of them were sick. Dr. Whitlock added that it can be a sore subject for those who TAR whether to euthanize for FIV; it may be if they are FIV positive and not currently sick they may not be euthanized whereas if they are positive and not apparently sick they may not be euthanized whereas if they were positive by teeth or other signs, Dr. House added that the disease is not addressed in the ordinance. Ms. Hundley added that another issue chat all animals in the City are required to wear their rabies and city registration tags. There are quick release collars, does the committee have a recommendation on making an exception of wearing the rabies tag forferal cats or keeping the requirements of them to wear it. Ms. Martinez fe €t that we would have the exemption for the feral cats that are in the permanent colony. Dr. House added that they are going to be micro - chipped and ear tagged anyway. Dr. Whitlock added that the ear tipping would be there although you won't know what date that was done. Ms. Martinez added that the hair could grow over it. Dr. Whitlock replied that she felt the notch was better. Dr. House pointed out that looking over the information on the TAR program they did approximately 138 animals. Ms. Martinez added that there is nothing in the permit that talks about those with FIV. Ms. Hundley pointed out that it is something to consider though that if a animal is tested positive are they allowed to stay in the colony, and if the concern is to reduce to transmission of the disease then the committee needs to address whether or not that animal is going to be required that vaccine as part of the colony then presumably there isn't any other way then the caregiver and their vet that the animal tests positive and should be alive, Dr. Whitlock felt that it would be the caregiver and who is doing the spay /neuter if they want to re- release FIV positive cats and most cat release programs do not test for FIV. Ms. Hundley pointed out that in this draft which was drawn from another location; # 7 on the first page says make every attempt to remove kittens from the colony between the age of 6 and 16 weeks however sterilization requires for every cat as of 4 months of age. Are kittens going to be allowed in the colony so long as they are fixed, vaccinated, sterilized and micro - chipped or making every attempt and not enforceable. If the idea is to have colonies of cats then the question is why would there be any kittens anyways. Ms. Person added that in the beginning would be possible before they are sterilized. Ms..Hundley replied that if someone traps a cat then vaccinates it, fixes it, micro -chip if you are doing this with one cat than presumably you are registering that cat as the owner and we do that for the 2 cat and then upon the 7u cat that the owner may obtain an application for a colony permit. The colony permit would truly be cats 7 -20 and all of those will be required vaccinated, sterilized and micro - chipped and notching and whether or not any kittens would be included. Dr. Whitlock replied that the problem with kittens is they was a vaccine you could give before the Texas legal age, Merial use to provide it at 8 -10 weeks, they changed the label so you cannot vaccinate a kitten before 3 months of age. Ms Hundley added that we don't have a requirement under State law saying that to be vaccinated under 4 months of age. The question would be that if we cannot vaccinate the animal and colony cat is required to be vaccinated that kitten presumably wouldn't be a part of the colony but upon 4 months of age the 4 things would be done and that cat could be added to the colony. At this point is to strike # 7 because the kitten is a colony cat or not and if it meets the requirements or it doesn't. Unless the committee has a way to meld kittens into the colony is it possible. Dr, Whitlock replied that the purpose is to take the young kitten, socialize them and adopt them so they don't go back into the colony. They are allowed to keep the kitten under present law for feeding, shelter and water or care. Dr, Whitlock asked why it couldn't be left in as a recommendation, Ms, Hundley replied that the colony consents of permitted animals that meet the conditions and requirement. Dr. Whitlock asked if we could say to remove kittens that are of the offspring of colony members. Ms. Hundley replied that the colony cats wouldn't behaving them being sterilized. If the committee wants to think about it, it was struck in the last draft and when it comes back next month it gives you time to consider how to address it but don't see how its applicable much less enforceable but applicable to the colony as to achieve. Ms, Person added that it's going to achieve fewer cats and with that in there if there are kittens and people start attracting that they would be removed from the colony and not be allowed to get old enough to be in it. It may not be able to be enforced but if it could be put under 'whereas." Ms. Hundley replied possibly. Ms, Hundley pointed out in going back to the numbers as there are 6, the people who have completed those cats and apply for the permit by identifying those animals, how does the committee envision that the colony will grow and those animals will be identifiable members. Will they be required to submit additional cats for a colony up to and including 20? Are they required to notify Animal Control when they have a death in the colony or remove a cat from the colony for whatever reason? How to manage that number on the permit, something simple by notifying the colony caregiver shall notify Animal Control from the addition or deletion of a cat from the colony. Dr. Whitlock asked if this is a yearly registration and if so each time they register they can update information that is in the colony. Ms, Hundley replied that we might run into a problem with that, if the owner has 6 animals of their own inside and they have 6 colony animals outside, at the point they want to get a permit they have 13 animals, at 14 they can have without meeting distance requirements. In a close urban setting you don't meet the distance requirements. With the addition of the next cat if it hits the maximum number what happens when they want their colony that now only has 8 cats to grow to 20 cats. If they can't find a way to add those cats to the colony they have 6 registered in their own name, they have 6 under the colony how would they vaccinate additional animals and add them to the colony without them appearing to add them to their own personal numbers and then violating the law, Dr. Whitlock asked if the 6 animals inside not be a part of the colony and not have the ear notch. Ms. Hundley replied yes and not ear notched and then they can have up to 20 in a colony. The committee agreed that they thought the 20 would include the 6 of their own pets and if those animals are outside pets. Ms. Hundley replied that if you have those 6 cats outside, you now have accumulated outside and eat with your 6 cats and now you take the 6 one by one trap and do the requirements when you are on the 7th you apply for the colony permit, the permit will allow you to keep up to 20 in addition to the 6 you already have. Ms. Hundley replied that the 6 are your own, the 20 you are the caretaker of those. The committee had a general discussion on the amount of animals per colony when they have their own animals. Ms. Person wanted to add that if we do 15 and then not worry about how many animals they have unless they are in violation. The committee agreed on the 15 animals and that one person could have more than 1 permit but only 1 permit per location. Ms. Person noted that The Cattery could be sponsors of a location and provide the caregiver for any location, Ms. Hundley replied that at this time there is not limited now as person being defined as such caregiver. Ms. Person asked if we had a TAR program and there were certain neighborhoods that were having problems if we got permission from the surrounding neighbors to start feeding we could potentially have more than one. Ms. Hundley replied yes. Ms. Beynon added that item # 2 states; that you must provide documentation of support by occupants of all property adjacent to the property on which feral cats will be cared for and permission by the owner(s), or their agent(s), of property on which feral cats are located to enter upon their property to provide such care. This would need to be provided for every off site cat colony. Ms, Hundley replied yes and it would also need to be provided for the location and those adjacent. The committee needs to consider what adjacent would be, generally what is adjacent is what is touching surrounding the property; and there is also taking inconsideration for what is adjacent across the street. Ms. Beynon stated her case about having a cat colony in her neighborhood and is there some kind of language for so many feet for the zoning. Ms. Hundley replied that it could be any surrounding properties. Mr. Schroeder wanted to clarify that if one of the neighbors doesn't sign then they would not be able to have one. Ms. Hundley replied that's correct. Ms. Person added that the across the street neighbors fall under the nuisance rule. The committee discussed the rule of permissions for across the street, Ms. Person said that would mean at least 9 permissions which are a lot, Ms. Beynon added that they will be going allover. Ms. Person replied that they are already going over there. With spay and neutering it is going to reduce. The majority of the committee agreed with the 3 sides. Ms. Hundley added that it will becoming back for final recommendation and every amendment proposal of change, addition, deletion and correction will be subject to, Dr. House based on the communication so far if we could change it to notching instead of the ear tip. Ms. Person asked if once they are already tipped that can be recognized as being sterilized and belonging to somebody. Ms. Hundley added that the committee can consider that, because there isn't any "cat colonies' right now. Whether or not there is a standard of notching or tipping or if the committee wants two ways however you wanted. It just needs to be measured and enforced. Ms. Martinez asked if it could be both. Ms. Hundley replied that if both are allowed there may be one standard universal and the committee needs to consider what the requirements are so it could be in the law. Mr. Schroeder asked if we could put something in so we can comeback and review. Dr. House noted that for one event he did for feral cat we had tipped and as Dr. Whitlock said those can be harder to identify. When we did the Petsmart program actually notched the end of the ear one year and the other notched the top of the ear and another place in the last year, r a Ms. Beynon asked if # 9 would be amended, you can't make people understand something you can only tell them. Ms. Hundley replied that any place where animals are being kept. Ms Beynon reiterated the wording under # 9 says "understand that ", you can't require to make someone understand you can only tell them. Ms. Hundley replied it's already been struck. 11. Public Comments Ms. Cudd introduced herself and showed her thanks and appreciation to the committee for all they do and is in favor of the Feral Cat Colony permit. 12. 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. 13. Adjournment Ms. Martinez made a motion to adjourn, Ms. Person 2nd the motion all in favor motion passed. 2:25 pm