ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 9, 2022, 6 PM AUSTIN CITY HALL, Room 1101 301 W. Second St. AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701 Some members of the Commission may be participating by videoconference. The meeting may be viewed online at http://www.austintexas.gov/watch-atxn-live. Public comment will be allowed in-person or remotely by telephone. Speakers may only register to speak on an item once, either in-person or remotely, and will be allowed up to three minutes to provide their comments. For remote participation, registration no later than noon the day before the meeting is required. To register for remote participation, email or call board liaison, Belinda Hare, at Belinda.Hare@austintexas.gov or by phone at 512-978-0565. AGENDA CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS: Craig Nazor, Chair Nancy Nemer, Parliamentarian Palmer Neuhaus Jo Anne Norton Luis Herrera Kristen Hassen CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda Ryan Clinton, Vice Chair Lisa Mitchell Katie Jarl Lotta Smagula Beatriz Dulzaides Dr. Paige Nilson 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Review and approval of minutes from the April 11, 2022, Animal Advisory Commission meeting 2. BRIEFINGS a. Austin Animal Center and Animal Services Reports. b. COVID Update. c. Austin Pets Alive! Quarterly Report 3. OLD BUSINESS: Update, Discussion and Possible Action a. Monthly Reporting of Data. b. Working Group on How to Increase Microchipping in the City of Austin. c. Austin Pets Alive!’s Future at the Town Lake Animal Center and the Maintenance of No Kill in Austin. d. Transferring Austin Animal Center Animals to Other Communities. 4. NEW BUSINESS: Discussion and Possible Action a. Austin Animal Center Space Crisis and Recommendations from the Space Crisis Working Group b. Austin Animal Center Staffing Request for FY 23 c. Resubmission of Vicious Dog Recommendation to Correct Language Error d. Revision to Fowl Enclosure Ordinance by Austin Public Health 5. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 6. ADJOURNMENT The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give notice at least 2 days (48 hours) before the meeting date. Please call Belinda Hare at the Animal Services Office, at 512-978-0565, for additional information; TTY users …
20220322 Fowl Enclosure Amendment Posting Language Approve an ordinance amending City Code Chapter 3-2-16 (Enclosures for Fowl) relating to enclosure setback distance. Lead Department Austin Public Health Fiscal Note This item has no fiscal impact Prior Council Action: November 21, 2013 – Council approved amendments to Part 3, Section 25-2-863(F) and Chapter 3-2 on a 6- 1 vote. The decision updated ordinance language relating to “raising, processing, and composting of fowl, rabbits, and aquatic foods . . . “ For More Information: Adrienne Sturrup, APH Director, 512-972-5167; Marcel Elizondo, Interim Assistant Director, APH Environmental Health Services Division, 512-978-0308; R. Lee Kelley, Interim Program Manager II, APH Environmental Health Services Division, 512-978-0341; Karen Rodela, Agenda Coordinator, APH, 512-972- 6473. Council Committee, Boards and Commission Action: No action to date. Additional Backup Information: Currently, the City regulates the distance between an animal enclosure and an adjacent residence or business structure. An enclosure used to keep two or more fowl must be located at least 50 feet from a residence or business structure, excluding the residence or business of the fowl’s owner or handler. Staff worked with the Office of Sustainability to identify how City regulations and policies can be amended to reduce the barriers of allowing residents in our community to raise fowl and provide an additional food source. Staff worked to identify other cities in Texas that have enclosure requirements in place. The investigation showed that some cities were more restrictive, while others were less restrictive. Of the cities that defined a setback distance in their code, 30 feet was the smallest setback distance defined. APH is recommending these changes: ▪ City Code Chapter 3-2-16 currently references 50 feet as the allowable distance for an enclosure from a residence or business structure. Amend Chapter 3-2-16: o Reduce setback distance from 50 feet down to 30 feet. o Incorporate a provision that allows APH to consider neighbor concerns on a case-by-case basis. Strategic Outcome(s): Health and Environment. APH EHSD 03/22/2022
Staffing request: • Animal Care Workers - 8, 6 new and converting 4 part-time temporary to 2 full-time • Animal Protection Officers - 2 • Animal Health Techs - 2 • Animal Enrichment Specialist - 6, 4 new and converting 4 part-time temporary to 2 full-time • Veterinarian - 1 • Foster/Rescue Coordinators - 3 • Customer Service Reps/ PRC- 4 • Certified Behaviorist - 1 Top 4 priorities #1 Customer Service Reps/ PRC - 4 Animal Protection Officers - 2 Certified Behaviorist - 1 #2 Animal Enrichment Specialist - 6, 4 new and converting 4 part-time temporary to 2 full-time Animal Care Workers - 8, 6 new and converting 4 part-time temporary to 2 full-time #3 IT Analyst – 1, this position could be moved back from Austin Public Health and the the budget to support it with no additional cost #4 Foster/Rescue Coordinators - 3
AAC Data April Monthly Data 2014 to 2022 Prepared by Kristen Hassen DATA SOURCES: This data was acquired directly from the AAC Boards and Commissions website from the AAC monthly reports for the meetings held in May 2016, May 2018, May 2020, and May 2022, all of which contained the information from the previous month (April). CHANGE IN REPORTING: It appears that in 2019, AAC stopped providing the more comprehensive, three-year comparison data report. The last comprehensive data report I could find for April was 2019. At some point in 2019, AAC also began reducing the qualitative “animal services report,” which provided metrics related to foster care, volunteerism, the pet resource center, communications and marketing, adoption events, and other information. Because of inconsistencies in reporting, I was unable to obtain enough consistent data to report on the following metrics for the eight-year period: ● Number of animals sent to foster care ● Number of animals in foster care ● Number of volunteers ● Number of foster caregivers ● Number of pets deferred by the pet support center ● Number of pets and people assisted by the pet support center COMPARATIVE METRICS NEEDED: Because the data I have found does not support any claim that AAC is facing an exceptional intake or capacity crisis, the following comparative metrics are necessary to gain an understanding of the current situation at AAC: ● Beginning and end of month kennel and foster census over a multi-year period. ● Length of stay information over a multi-year period broken up by species ● Data points from the Advisory Commission space working group. See summary HERE.
Historic AAC Foster and Volunteer Program Information -as it relates to current space situation at AAC- Prepared by Kristen Hassen’ Introduction: This document shows some foster and volunteer information, pulled directly from AAC animal services reports from 2016 to 2022. Links to the reports are included. Volunteer and foster programs are among the most critical programs for reducing the number of animals housed in the shelter. Volunteers are directly responsible for pets being adopted, fostered, and rescued and foster caregivers free up kennel space for incoming animals, reduce the length of stay of pets, and facilitate adoptions. I was only able to create one graph because the reported metrics vary depending on the year. It is recommended AAC use consistent metrics over multiple years in order to best understand the comparative data. Note on the below graph: 2020 data is indicated in the report as ‘primarily foster care.’ This is the first time that foster hours were counted in volunteer hours and it is unclear if AAC continues to count foster hours as volunteer hours, but this obviously skews the data significantly, at least for 2020 and possibly beyond, depending on if foster hours are still counted in the total of volunteer hours. Also of note is that we do not yet have the volunteer hours for April 2022 so I used the March hours from 2022, which should be relatively consistent with the April hours, but this chart should be updated once that total is provided. Takeaways: 1. AAC has shown over multiple years it is able to support 5,000 or more volunteer hours per month in April, up to more than 6,000. In March of 2022, AAC was still only at 3,233 hours total (unclear if foster is being counted in this total), which is well below what is possible and sustainable. More volunteers will reduce shelter stress and increase outcomes. 2. AAC stopped reporting hours for community service volunteers and volunteer groups 3. after 2019. It is unclear whether these programs are still active or not. Both of these programs can increase outcomes and provide much-needed exercise and enrichment which helps get pets adopted more quickly. It’s hard to tell much about the foster program from the April reports because reported metrics vary. What is most critical is to know total number of animals in foster care at beginning and end of the month over multiple years …
April 2022 April 2022 Animal Services Report AUSTIN ANIMAL SERVICES REPORT • The live outcome percentage for April was 97.4 percent. • A total of 1,067 animals were brought to the shelter, including 573 dogs, 428 cats, 46 wild animals, eight birds, six guinea pigs, four rabbits, and two reptiles. • A total of 419 animals were adopted (281 dogs, 132 cats, four small pets, and two birds). • A total of 132 dogs, cats, birds, and tortoises were returned to their owners (RTOs and RTO- • Animal Protection Officers (APOs) returned 38 animals to their owners in the field. • Officers handed out 44 fencing assistance applications and implanted three microchips. • Officers impounded 158 injured animals and delivered 95 wildlife animals to Austin Wildlife • Officers entered 259 rabies exposure reports and submitted 45 specimens for rabies testing. Six bats tested positive for rabies and an additional five were considered non-negative due to being too decomposed to test. Animal Services News Adopt). Animal Protection Rescue. • Coyote Activities: 32 o Wild speak- 1 o Observation- 3 o Sighting- 18 o Encounter- 3 o Incident- 1 o Wild sick- 5 o Wild injured- 1 Volunteer, Foster, and Rescue Programs • A total of 255 volunteers donated 2,778.49 hours of volunteer service. April 2022 Animal Services Report • The Volunteer Coordinators held three orientations for new volunteers in April, introducing 87 people to the shelter programs. 114 new volunteers attended their first training or mentor shifts in April. • Forklift Danceworks event introduced around 1,000 people to volunteering and fostering for the shelter. • 83 animals were adopted directly from foster care. • More than 150 different people/families fostered. • 108 new foster applications were processed. • There are currently 810 members (approved fosters) in the foster program’s GivePulse group. • One pet died or was euthanized in foster care. • As of May 3, at 8:40 a.m. there were 235 animals in foster care. • 234 dogs, cats, guinea pigs, and rabbits were transferred to 21 local AAC Rescue Partners (compared to 224 animals to 26 partners for April 2021). • 93 dogs were transported to three out-of-state AAC Rescue Partners. • Two owner surrender appointments were posted to local AAC Rescue partners for intake deferral option. Vet Services • AAC vets performed 727 exams. • AAC vets spayed/neutered 367 animals; 99 percent of available animals have been sterilized. …
Proposed revision to Section 3-4-7 3-4-7 VICIOUS DOG. (A) An owner or handler shall take reasonable measures to protect the public from accidental contact with a dog that, by nature or by training, is dangerous to people or other animals. (B) [ An owner or handler may not keep or permit a dog to be in the city if the dog has] For purposes of this section, a vicious dog is a dog that, while running at large, has: [(1) on at least three separate occasions bitten or scratched a person in the city; (2) on at least one occasion bitten or scratched a person to an extent that the attending physician has presented an affidavit to the health authority stating that the person’s life may have been endangered by the dog; or (3) on at least one occasion:] [(a)] (1) killed a another dog, cat, or other domestic pet, fowl, or livestock, provided, however, that when the incident occurred, the killed animal was not in violation of a provision of this title relating to the confinement or physical control of animals in the City; or [(b)] (2) seriously injured another animal to an extent that an attending veterinarian has presented an affidavit to the health authority stating that the injured animal's life was seriously endangered or taken by the dog, or that the dog caused a significant permanent impairment of the injured animal’s basic bodily functions or mobility; provided, however, that when the incident occurred, the injured animal was not in violation of a provision of this title relating to the confinement or physical control of animals in the City. (C) If the Health Authority determines that a dog is a vicious dog as defined in subsection (B), the Health Authority shall notify the owner of that fact. (D) An owner, not later than the 15th day after the date the owner is notified that a dog owned by the owner is a vicious dog, may appeal the determination of the Health Authority to municipal court. An owner may appeal the decision of municipal court in the same manner as appeal for other cases from municipal court. (E) The owner of a vicious dog shall comply with the following conditions: (1) restrain the dog at all times on a leash in the immediate control of a person or in an enclosure that prevents the escape or release of the …
AAC Meeting Minutes 2021-05-09 REGULAR MEETING MAY 9, 2022 ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION APRROVED MINUTES The Animal Advisory Commission convened for a regular meeting on Monday, May 9, 2022, 6 p.m., in the Boards and Commissions Room 1101 at Austin City Hall. Commission Chair, Craig Nazor, called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. and welcomed new District 4 Commissioner, Dr. Paige Nilson, to her first meeting. Chair Nazor conducted a roll call of those in attendance and confirmed a quorum of 10 commissioners. Seven Commissioners attended the meeting in person: Nazor, Jarl, Clinton, Smagula, Herrera, Hassen and Dr. Paige Nilson. Three Commissioners attended via teleconferencing: Mitchell, Neuhaus, and Dulzaides. Commissioner Nemer joined the meeting at Old Business, Agenda Item 3b. Commissioner Norton was absent, and District 10 is vacant. Commission Members Absent: Norton Staff in Attendance: Don Bland, Jason Garza, Belinda Hare, Dr. Kathryn Lund, Abigail Varela, Rebekha Montie, Kelsey Cler, Sarah Luce, Mary Brown, Nicole Savage PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS: GENERAL Virtual: Emily Steinberg Eileen McFall Stephanie Loayza Zachary Loayza 1 AAC Meeting Minutes 2021-05-09 In Person: Beverly Luna Ashley Niels Shelly Leibhan Rhonda Pickens Joann Molinyawe 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Jarl moved to approve the minutes from the Animal Advisory Commission Meeting, April 11, 2022. Commissioner Dulzaides seconded the motion which passed unanimously, 10 to 0, with all Commissioners in attendance at the time voting approval: Nazor, Jarl, Clinton, Smagula, Herrera, Hassen, Dr. Paige Nilson, Mitchell, Neuhaus, and Dulzaides. Commissioner Nemer joined the meeting at Old Business; Commissioner Norton was absent, and District 10 is vacant. 2. BRIEFINGS a. Austin Animal Center and Animal Services Reports b. COVID Update c. Austin Pets Alive! Quarterly Report 3. OLD BUSINESS: Update, Discussion and Possible Action a. Monthly Reporting of Data b. Working Group on How to Increase Microchipping in the City of Austin c. Austin Pets Alive!’s Future at the Town Lake Animal Center and the Maintenance of No d. Transferring Austin Animal Center Animals to Other Communities No action. No action. Kill No action. No action. 4. NEW BUSINESS: Discussion and Possible Action a. Austin Animal Center Space Crisis and Recommendations from the Space Crisis Working Group Commissioner Neuhaus moved to resubmit the recommendations from the Space Crisis Working Group; Commissioner Nemer seconded the motion which passed with a vote of 9 to 1 with one abstention. Nine commissioners voted for the proposal: Nazor, Jarl, Clinton, Smagula, Hassen, Mitchell, Neuhaus, …
