HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-28-2002 - 2 - - 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 28, 2002
Action Agenda
Item No. 2
SUBJECT: Proposed External Evaluation of the Orange County Animal Shelter and Public
Comment Period
DEPARTMENT: Manager's Office PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
Health
ATTACHMENT(S):
American Humane Association (AHA) INFORMATION CONTACT:
Description Gwen Harvey, ext 2307
Humane Society of America (HSUS) Rosemary Summers, ext 2411
Description TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
HSUS Materials Hillsborough 732-8181
Reference Check Report Chapel Hill 968-4501
Correspondence from APS Board to Durham 688-7331
Board of Commissioners 10/17/2002 Mebane 336-227-2031
PURPOSE: To consider entering into a contract for an external evaluation of the Orange
County Animal Shelter, to provide staff direction on the scope of work for the proposed external
evaluation, and to receive public comment on the scope of work, especially emphasis areas and
suggestions for meaningful public involvement.
BACKGROUND:
Several residents raised concerns at the BOCC meeting on September 3 regarding the
operation of the Orange County Animal Shelter and the contract that the County has with the
Animal Protection Society of Orange County (APS) to provide those shelter services. A follow-
up report was provided to the Board of Commissioners at their regular meeting on October 1.
During the meeting on October 1, Commissioners discussed the possibility of contracting with
an external organization for an evaluation of the Animal Shelter and directed staff to gather
more information about each respective national agency that has conducted similar studies. An
external assessment would provide an unbiased view of shelter operations and offer
benchmarks with other organizations providing shelter services nationwide. The following
issues have been identified either through public comment, Commissioner comment or Board of
Health Committee as appropriate for inclusion in the external assessment:.
• Program and management improvements
• Public interaction and customer service/satisfaction
• Considerations for the design, maintenance, and programming of any new facility
• Continued review and consideration of best disease management practices
• Adoption policies (ensuring that healthy animals are adopted)
• Provisions for effective, low-cost spay/neuter operations
2
• Operational policies, procedures, protocols
• Records-keeping
• Rules codification and review
• Governing structure
• Methods for assuring continuous public feedback into the process
• Structure of the APS Board to include BOCC representative
• BOCC definition of values/goals/objectives necessary to animal sheltering services
The Board of Health Animal Control and Environmental Health Committee discussed at length
how to encourage diverse members of the public in providing input so that it will be useful in
moving forward with future changes in animal sheltering operations. The descriptions of the
external assessments from both organizations seemed to consider public input but not to the
extent that seems to be of interest here.
The Board of Health Committee is recommending that a public process focus on
• A future orientation
• Input from the entire county
• Include both interpersonal and written input methods (focus groups, key informant
interviews, and/or surveys)
And that the content be focused on
• Services expected from the shelter
• Top three goals for the shelter
• Description of good customer service
The Committee would encourage hiring a paid facilitator (perhaps through Dispute Settlement
Center) to identify and group major areas of concern by staffing two focus groups, one in
northern Orange and one in southern Orange. The Committee felt that having this done prior to
the external consultant starting their analysis might provide additional public input and focus to
the consultant's assessment.
In examining the descriptions of the services offered by the HSUS or the AHA, the Committee
did not feel there was adequate information to make a recommendation of one organization
over another. Staff was directed to solicit comments by some of the references listed in the
HSUS consultation description and to contact AHA for similar references. The Reference
Check Report (attached) provides details on the conversations with four HSUS clients. HSUS's
evaluation for the city of Sacramento California is also available online at the following website:
www.pw.sacto.org/animaicare/. It is clear from all the references that specific recommendations
for improvement are included in each HSUS report as well as an extensive analysis. Key
stakeholder interviews are a part of their process.
AHA has been slower to respond to our request for references. AHA's Program Director noted
to Mr. Sauls in a telephone conversation that AHA's consultation program was best used if an
agency could specifically identify an area needing improvement. AHA is not accustomed to
comprehensive organizational assessments and suggested that HSUS is more accustomed to
the comprehensive approach.
The APS Board of Directors at their October meeting expressed their willingness to request an
external assessment of the shelter operations and also has no problem with either organization
3
proposed. They have expressed a willingness to make changes in the shelter operations; some
of which are detailed in the memorandum to the Board of Commissioners dated October 17
(attached).
If the Board of County Commissioners chooses to contract with either HSUS or AHA for
evaluation, a potential time frame could be:
Define elements of contract with external evaluator& solicit prices November
Make decision on contract and engage evaluator November/December
External evaluation data gathering December—January
Site visits by evaluators February
Preliminary report by evaluators May
Final report by evaluators June
After reviewing the materials from both HSUS and AHA, receiving feedback from both the
Board of Health committee and the APS Board, evaluating the reference reports for HSUS, and
considering responsiveness to the prospective client and the overall capabilities of either
external evaluator to perform a full and comprehensive assessment, staff is recommending that
should the Board of Commissioners wish to move forward, that the staff enter into negotiations
with HSUS. To do so, staff will need Board of Commissioner's confirmation of a proposed
scope of work and direction on any other concerns necessary for a successful engagement.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The cost of the contract will depend on the actual scope of work identified and endorsed by the
Board of Commissioners. HSUS takes into account the size of the county involved as well as
the scope of the study. The price may range from $15,000 to $20,000, however this is only an
estimate; more specific cost figures can be derived through actual contract negotiation. Funds
for the contract could be appropriated from the Board's contingency account.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board of Commissioners
authorize staff to enter into negotiations with the Humane Society of the United States for the
conduct of an external evaluation of the Orange County Animal Shelter Operation, with a scope
of work and projected timeline as confirmed by the Board as the result of discussion with staff
and consideration of input during the public comment period of this work session.
Reference Check Report -
GOJpty Hea7 HSUS Animal Services Program
m O
Reference Check#1
o D 3
Robert Anderson,Director,Baltimore City Bureau of Animal Control
millin
k Interviewed by John Sauls, October 7, 2002)
N-th Cmoli—Public H*ahh
Background
ORANGE COUNTY 1. The HSUS evaluation was advocated by local humane societies that did
HEALTH DEPARTMENT not have their own shelters.
2. There are local humane societies that have their own shelters that did not
call for a program evaluation because they were working in the city
Rosemary L Summers, shelter to make improvements.
MPH, DrPH 3. The"humane-oriented community"went to the city council to request
Health Director
the HSUS evaluation.
Richard E.Whitted Human 4. The Director, Mr. Anderson,was opposed to the evaluation because he
Services center 1 Y
300 West Tryon Street had on the job for only six months. He said that some in the humane
Post Office Box 8181 community"wanted his head".
Hillsborough,NC 27278 5. Baltimore City Animal Control handles 17,000 animals per year. The
Phone:(919)245-2411
Fax: (919)644-3007 evaluation was done in 2000.
www co orange nc.us/health
Outcomes/Conclusions
♦ 1. Report is 650 pages. It was on his desk when I called.
2. First part of report details what is wrong, second and third parts detail
Animal Control Services how to fix the problems.
3. Mr. Anderson said the report was and is, "useful because it killed the
Central Administrative opposition"but also because it concluded that Animal Control cannot do
Services what some think they should do without more money. For example,
HSUS recommended that Animal Control employ 41 A.C.O.'s. There
Dental Health Services are 12 officers and money to hire more has not been forthcoming from
the city.
ivironmental Health Services 4. Mr. Anderson said that he is now glad that the report was done because
he uses it to raise money and to defend his agency.
5. There is an Animal Control Advisory Committee composed of
Health Promotion and veterinarians and other professionals.
Education Services P
Reference Check#2
Personal Health Services Ms. Rana Bohan,Director, Department of Neighborhood Services,
♦ City of Oklahoma Animal Welfare Division
(Interviewed by John Sauls, October 7, 2002)
Background
N 1. On May P, a tornado struck a city neighborhood and damaged or
destroyed 4000 homes. The division sheltered many of the animals that
304 Revere Road QJ lived in that part of the city. There was no Animal Emergency Response
P O Box 8181 cn
Hillsborough,NC 27278 o Plan. The disaster and the division's response pointed out many
problems that had previously existed in the shelter operation but had not
Phone: (919)245-2075 been identified. When the disaster recovery was over it was clear to the
FAX: (919)644-3308 E Director that the underlying shelter program problems still existed. So
a she decided to call in an outside evaluator.
2. She could not give me a concrete reason why she chose HSUS over AHA.
Conclusions/Outcome
1. Ms. Bohan stated that the evaluation was "very thorough and professional."Very"on the
point".
2. She also stated, "It made us take a hard look at our program" and they are still
implementing the recommendations. HSUS raised issues that the local department had
never considered.
3. HSUS asked for a huge amount of information to study prior to their arrival in the city.
Ms. Bohan said she was on the phone with HSUS two or three times a week for the two
months between contract and on site visit. She made an exhaustive agenda of meetings
with people HSUS desired to interview ("everyone you can imagine") during their three
day visit.
4. HSUS gave an"outbriefing" at the end of the visit which Ms,Bohan found very valuable.
5. Contract was made in July, on-site visit was in September, executive summary came in
December and full report a month later. The summary was 40 pages, the report 260 pages
with a 600 page appendix. (HSUS no longer does an executive summary.)
6. The department staff presented the report to the city council.
7. "Everyone took away the piece that was of interest to them."
Reference Check#3
Stillwater, Oklahoma, Animal Control. Mary Dickey,Director
(Interviewed by John Sauls, Tuesday, October 22, 2002)
Background
1. Stillwater is a university town of 60,000, including students.
2. The city shelter was built in 1985.
3. Later, the city invited the humane society to house their animals at the city's shelter.
4. The city shelters animals until "their time is up". Adoptable animals are then moved to
the society's shelter, which is a separate building at the same site.
5. Society gets all its shelter animals from the city shelter. Ms. Dickey characterized the
society's shelter as "no-kill".
6. The problem arose when the city determined that the "no-kill" policies had a detrimental
effect on the health and well being of the animals, due to overcrowding. Society would
not change their"no kill"policies.
7. City invited HSUS to come in so as to resolve the issue.
Outcomes/Conclusions
1. Ms. Dickey felt that it would have been better had the evaluation taken place in the
absence of such controversy.
2. There were positive aspects: the society did make changes to reduce overcrowding.
3. The report was extremely thorough.
4. Ms. Dickey felt that there was misinformation in the report because conclusions were
based on interviews with people who did not always tell the truth.
5. Ms. Dickey felt that the local media and others exploited the issue and the report,
focusing on blame-placing rather than improvements.
6. She felt that shelter staff were demoralized because staff felt the report was used to make
them look bad.
ANIMAL PROTECTION SOCIETY OF ORANGE COUNTY
1 061 AIRPORT ROAD • CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27514
TELEPHONE 91 9-967-7363 • FAX 91 9-967-751 7
DATE: October 17, 2002
TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners
FROM: APS Board of Directors
COPY TO: Laura Walters, APS Executive Director
John Link, Orange County Manager
Rosemary Summers, Director of Public Health
This is in response to the recent publicity concerning the Orange County Animal Shelter and the
role of the Animal Protection Society (APS). The APS has been in existence for more than 40
years in Orange County and has dedicated itself to the rescue of hundreds of thousands of lost,
injured, abused and abandoned animals. Since 1979, the APS has contracted with Orange
County to oversee operations of the animal shelter in Chapel Hill. The total annual cost of
operating the animal shelter at its current level of services,programs,and personnel is
$1,002,493. Orange County subsidizes this amount by $428,818. The partnership between the
County and APS has been very successful and has allowed the APS to offer additional programs
to Orange County residents that would otherwise not have been possible.
The recent complaints from a few vocal citizens are of great concern to the APS Board of
Directors which has taken immediate action to investigate the allegations. The APS Board has
carefully looked at these allegations concerning wildlife, adoption and appeals procedures,
transparent policies and decisions, and disease control. The APS Board has come to the
conclusion that all four issues are being promoted by the same core group of complainants. Our
response sums up the APS Board's findings on each issue of concerns.
WILDLIFE
Beginning in November of 2001, the APS Board and both former and current APS Executive
Directors, Pat Sanford and Laura Walters, worked closely with Dr. Bobby Schopler to come to
an agreement on the role of domestic animal and wildlife care at APS, his job description, salary,
and the APS financial commitment to wildlife. After more than 8 months of discussion and
negotiation, Dr. Schopler was still not satisfied with the provisions of the contract and he chose
not to sign the employment agreement with APS.
1
APS originally hired a veterinarian in 1997 because projected salary and costs were believed to
be equal to or less than the amount spent annually at local veterinary clinics for necessary care of
shelter animals. The APS determined that it could hire a veterinarian to serve the needs of
domestic animals coming through the shelter and support its wildlife program simultaneously. In
the fall of 2001, Dr. Schopler revealed that his ultimate personal goal was to create a wildlife
center where he could study disease, teach other veterinarians and students, and publish articles
and papers on wildlife. He sought out wildlife in need from all over North Carolina and even
neighboring states. Squirrels were receiving heart surgery and robins were having wings pinned.
While APS continually supported the efforts of Dr. Schopler over the years, it became obvious
that his goals as an employee of APS did not support the overall goals of APS. The animals in
the animal shelter in Chapel Hill were not receiving necessary medical care due to Dr. Schopler's
schedule with wildlife and once again it was necessary to send the domestic animals to local
veterinarians at a substantial cost to APS. The APS does not have the funds to support a full
time wildlife veterinarian and separate veterinary services for domestic animals.
Contrary to what has been reported in the media, in July 2002, the APS Board met after Dr.
Schopler's departure and decided to offer him the opportunity to be an independent contractor to
APS for wildlife care. He declined that offer, but expressed a desire to submit a proposal to the
APS Board that would include both wildlife care and domestic animal care. He was asked to
submit his proposal to one of the APS Board members in time for it to be examined before the
APS went to the North Carolina Veterinary Medical Board with a proposal for a low cost
spay/neuter clinic. Dr. Schopler said he would submit his proposal. When no proposal was
received from Dr. Schopler,the APS Board asked that he be sent a written request for his
proposal.
On August 13, 2002, a letter was sent to Dr. Schopler that included the following invitation: "On
behalf of the APS Board of Directors, I am requesting that, if you desire to be involved in
devising a plan for our Wildlife Center and our proposal to the Veterinary Board, you submit a
proposal to the APS for providing veterinary services. The proposal must cover veterinary care
for all APS domestic animals being sheltered, all wildlife brought to APS facilities, spay/neuter
of all APS animals slated for adoption, and administration of the low cost spay/neuter program.
The proposal must be detailed and also include all technical and managerial aspects of operating
the Wildlife Center-S/N Clinic as has been done in past years. At a minimum,the proposal must
list all of the activities and duties you will perform and the compensation you desire for these
items." We hoped that Dr. Schopler would propose a way to fund both veterinary care for
shelter animals, as well as wildlife. Although Dr. Schopler told APS Board members that he
would present a proposal,he ultimately refused to do so and walk away from the opportunity to
continue operation of the Wildlife Center and Spay/Neuter clinic under his management.
We currently lease our veterinary facility on Nicks Road to a veterinarian. He is establishing his
clinic in those facilities. We have contracted with this clinic to provide a wide variety of our
veterinary needs. During the morning hours, the veterinarian at this clinic performs spay/neuter
surgeries on APS animals and will perform low cost/low income spay/neuter surgeries for the
public. In the afternoon, this veterinarian visits the animal shelter where he does rounds,
prescribes medicines, and treats injuries. He is also doing emergency surgeries on stray animals
hit by cars instead of euthanizing them. These animals are later returned to their owner, placed
in foster care, or offered for adoption. With our current contracts for veterinary services,we
have been able to expand treatment for emergency cases. We did not have access to any of
these veterinary services in previous years. We are also now able to legally operate a low cost
spay/neuter program.
In order to provide all of these services to the public and APS animals, it was necessary to allow
a veterinarian to lease the facilities and establish his own clinic. In order to operate a clinic, our
facilities on Nicks Road needed to be renovated. This is one of the reasons APS decided to
temporarily close the wildlife center to allow for these renovations. The APS Board has gotten
many letters and phone calls asking why Dr. Schopler was not offered the opportunity to
establish his own clinic at the Nicks Road facility. Dr. Schopler was offered this opportunity
twice, once in the fall of 2001 and again when he was asked to submit his proposal in August,
2002. He declined both times.
The APS Board has a strong commitment to all animals including wildlife. The APS Board
thought that with the changes in leasing the veterinary facilities, it would be a good opportunity
to evaluate and reorganize the wildlife program. Both short term and long term goals will be
determined. The cost of the wildlife program to APS was$142,900 annually with a deficit of
$96,283 that APS had to support in other ways. While this is a substantial financial commitment
of the APS, it is certainly a benefit to the community and APS supports this important program.
ADOPTION AND APPEAL PROCEDURES
Since October 7, 2001, Laura Walters has been the director of the animal shelter and in that
capacity has directed all policies,programs, and animal care. Though Pat Sanford didn't
officially leave the employ of the APS until February 1, 2002, she was not responsible for any
operations of the animal shelter after October 7,2001. Due to Ms. Walters' extensive
background in animal husbandry and shelter operations,the Board was confident in her abilities
to lead the animal shelter. She was later appointed to the position of Executive Director in
March 2002 after a nationwide search and interview process. Under Ms. Walters' guidance the
adoption process became more open and accessible to the public. Unnecessarily strict guidelines
were eliminated and following recommendations by the Humane Society of the United States
(HSUS), animals previously considered unadoptable for such reasons as the color of their tongue
or their breed were given the opportunity to find a new home. Other changes that Ms. Walters
has made include loosening up rigid restrictions of prospective adopters. For instance,animals
considered to be outdoors only are looked at more favorably and families with young children
may now be considered to adopt puppies and kittens. Ms. Walters has opened up the process and
made adopting the animals in Orange County more accessible to all. During her tenure, she has
had outstanding success in increasing the adoption rate from 40%to 50% (which is the highest in
North Carolina) while decreasing the euthanasia rate.
A goal of the APS is to ensure that animals are being adopted into permanent homes and that
there is a good match between animal and the new family. Under HSUS recommended
guidelines, Ms. Walters instituted a temperament testing program using volunteer dog trainers
that help make the match a lasting one. The APS is in the process of testing 200 dogs and
comparing their adoption's success to that of animals that were not tested. This is a huge project
3
but one that will conclusively determine the success rate of the adoption program, allow us to
follow up on adopted animals, and provide test data to other organizations on its merit.
The APS not only has a responsibility to the animals but also to the public and their safety.
When Judith Reitman insisted on adopting a dog proven dangerous through three separate
temperament tests, she was denied by the shelter staff. She was then directed to the appeals
process where she was again denied by a panel of four including a veterinarian and the director
of Orange County Animal Control. A videotape of the dog proved beyond a reasonable doubt
that the animal would be a danger to any neighborhood in which it might reside. During the
appeal, Ms. Reitman was given every opportunity to explain how she could provide a safe
environment for the dog and her neighbors. She instead chose to bring an attorney who never
gave an argument for the adoption of the dog but questioned the legal rights of dogs to be
adopted as compared to children's rights. Ms. Reitman also brought a veterinarian to speak on
her behalf even though the veterinarian had never met the dog. He could only say that some
dogs become less aggressive once neutered which the APS doesn't dispute but that would not
have had any bearing on the adoption of this particular dog. During the appeal, Ms. Reitman was
offered the opportunity to view the videotape which clearly showed the animal attacking a dog
trainer but she refused. In addition,APS received a petition from Ms. Reitman's neighbors
requesting that the adoption be denied. Several members of her neighborhood visited Laura
Walters in person to express their concerns about safety of children and other animals.
The APS full adoption procedures as approved by Orange County are available for any member
of the public to read. There are currently parts of the procedures posted around the animal
shelter including a summary of the appeals process. In the past year, there have been 13 appeals
and 10 of those were overturned by the appeals committee allowing the animals to be adopted.
The ones that were overturned were in regard to families with children under the age of 6 years
who wanted to adopt a young animal or someone who had roommates who wanted to adopt. In
all overturned cases Ms. Walters recommended to the Appeals Committee that the decisions be
overturned because the adopters were responsible and would provide good homes. The three
denials that were upheld included
• A teenager trying to adopt a pit bull
• An elderly person who had returned a kitten because it was too rambunctious and then
wanted to adopt another kitten.-(It was recommended that she adopt an adult instead
which she did)
• A woman who wanted to adopt a known dangerous dog into a neighborhood where there
were complaints received by animal control from her neighbors that she allows her dogs
to roam off leash.
The APS Board feels strongly that the appeals process is very fair and has done what it was
intended to do—ensure that animals and citizens are safe.
TRANSPARENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
All APS policies and procedures in regards to the visiting public are very clear. Signs are posted
throughout the animal shelter and staff is available to answer any questions. With the exception
4
of executive sessions, all APS Board and committee meetings are open to the public. Under the
advisement of our attorney,the APS Board adjourns to executive session when personnel issues
or legal matters are to be discussed. The meeting dates and times are published in the quarterly
newsletter and are relayed to anyone who inquires. All animal information sheets are given to
the County Department of Animal Control on a monthly basis,as required by the contract and are
considered public record. The only items that are not considered open to the public are bite
reports which relate to medical privacy issues and cruelty complaints to protect the anonymity of
the person complaining. Though APS is a private charitable non-profit organization,the APS
Board considers it an entity that is open to and serves the public. The APS does not consider the
openness of the organization to be an issue of concern that requires any additional response.
DISEASE CONTROL
As stated before,the Orange County Animal Shelter has been under the direction of Laura
Walters since October 2001. The complaints and allegations about disease control started after
Dr. Schopler left and his citizen and staff supporters became vocal. The Board is not aware of
any complaints regarding disease control prior to August 2002. As shelter veterinarian, Dr.
Schopler was responsible for managing the outbreak of panleukopenia which began in May 2002
and heightened in early July. Both before and after Dr. Schopler left,the Shelter staff followed
all veterinary recommendations to euthanize kittens showing any symptoms of illness and in fact
euthanized an entire room of kittens and closed it down in an effort to rid the shelter of this
outbreak. It was through dedicated and repetitive efforts of the staff that the disease outbreak
finally ended in August. There has only been one incident in September. It is unfortunate that
some animals with the disease were adopted out but they were adopted with no apparent
symptoms and in good faith. Adoption fees and veterinary bills were refunded to those that
made a request. A waiver of liability is always signed by all adopters acknowledging that we can
in no way guarantee the health of any animals.
Parvovirus has been only occasional in the animal shelter. It is highly infectious and we have a
very strong disease control program in place to keep it under control. For instance, hand
disinfectants are everywhere along with very visible signs warning the public to disinfect their
hands prior to touching any animals or between animals. In addition,the staff is very watchful
of public interaction with animals and is insistent on proper disinfecting between touching
animals. When an animal tests positive with a disease,we go into crisis mode. The kennel or
cage in which the dog or cat was housed is closed down for 24 hours as it goes through repeated
bleaching procedures. If needed, animals in the wing are revaccinated. We have been very
successful in stopping outbreaks of parvo and usually deal only with an occasional single case.
All animals are vaccinated within 24 hours of acceptance into the shelter and various tests are
done as needed including heartworm, feline leukemia etc. A parvo test is not conducted unless
there are symptoms. Tests for panleukopenia are unreliable.
Dr. Kris Bergstrand(a former volunteer veterinarian with Dr. Schopler who is unknown to any
of the animal shelter staff as ever having visited the animal shelter), recently complained to the
North Carolina Department of Agriculture - Veterinary Division, alleging that disease was
rampant in the animal shelter and animals were suffering and dying. In response to this
complaint, a surprise inspection was made by Dr. Earl Sheppard, Department of Agriculture
5
Field Veterinarian, on October 2, 2002. Dr. Sheppard spent a great deal of time talking with
staff and touring the shelter and he found no signs of disease, lack of cleanliness, or mistreatment
of animals. Dr. Sheppard discussed the panleukopenia outbreak and said that it had spread to
most animal shelters in North Carolina and it is very difficult to eradicate. After staff explained
steps taken to stop the disease, Dr. Sheppard agreed it was handled in the best possible manner.
Parvovirus is also common in animal shelters and Dr. Sheppard approved the disease control
program already in place. He further stated that all animal shelters across the United States
occasionally struggle with disease outbreaks and it is a normal part of everyday shelter life. A
copy of the inspection report is attached. The findings were all positive.
The staff of the APS wildlife center(all of whom are also former employees of Dr. Schopler) has
also lodged complaints to the Board of Commissioners about disease control among other things.
These staff members have no direct experience in the animal shelter or with shelter operations.
They have never expressed concern about disease control before September 2002. If they had
concerns, they should have been brought to shelter staff first,the Shelter Committee second, and
finally the APS Board if the issues couldn't be resolved. These staff members never made any
effort to get answers to their questions through appropriate channels and instead skipped right to
the Board of Commissioners and the media.
A public animal shelter is bound by ethics and laws to take in any animal in need no matter the
condition or behavior of that animal. For that reason, disease will always be a part of an animal
shelter and while it will never be completely eradicated, it can be controlled. The APS Board
has confidence in the shelter staff and their management of the summer outbreak and general
disease control throughout the year. They have sought out professional opinions and are open to
suggestions for improvement. The Board established the Shelter Committee many years ago to
oversee care of all animals. This committee is chaired by a veterinarian, Dr. Claudia Sheppard,
and includes members of the staff and APS Board, county animal control, board of health, and
private citizens. Members are appointed by Dr. Sheppard.
SUMMARY
The APS Board of Directors takes very seriously any negative allegations involving the
operation of the animal shelter. While improvement is a continuing process as we learn more
and technology improves, we are confident that the Orange County Animal Shelter continues to
be one of the best animal shelters in North Carolina and serves the animals and citizens well.
Upon reviewing the recent complaints—most of which have been found to be groundless,the
APS Board suspects that they are a result of disgruntled former employees and their supporters.
The timing of when this barrage began is suspicious and the accusations questionable. It is
evident to all that no public animal shelter can be perfect because we cannot pick and choose the
animals that come through our doors. Some will come in sick or injured and others will have
poor dispositions that will prevent them from ever being adopted.
The animal shelter is a difficult place to work and the staff in place does the best possible job
even with deficiencies in the physical facility itself. Customer satisfaction is important at an
animal shelter. Since August, surveys have been given to anyone who comes into the animal
shelter. So far, a total of 125 have been received. Of that number, 109 have expressed
6
satisfaction and 16 have made suggestions for improvement. The suggestions for improvement
include
• better signs to direct the public to the animals
• a quiet area to visit with the dogs
• extended hours
• lower adoption costs
• increase staff to handle busy hours
• a veterinarian available for questions
• easier spay/neuter schedules
• allow animals to go home prior to surgery
• increase PetSmart adoptions.
The Shelter Committee is taking the suggestions under consideration and has also scheduled
members of the Chapel Hill Dispute Resolution Center to conduct training for our staff on
handling conflicts and improving people skills.
Currently the Board of Commissioners is receiving complaints directly from some citizens
regarding the animal shelter. These citizens have not made any effort to resolve their concerns
through the animal shelter but instead are going directly to you and local news media. Because
the APS has in place a process to deal with all complaints, the APS Board recommends that
County Commissioners refer these citizens to the animal shelter for resolution. This is the only
way that we can deal directly and effectively with complaints and meet the needs of the public
fairly.
Attached is a financial report on all APS expenses in regards to operation of the animal shelter.
While the County subsidizes operations at$428,818,APS contributes an additional $573, 675,
made possible by generous donations from the community, through grants, and income from
programs, which allows us to provide the community with services and programs that would
otherwise be unaffordable. In addition, we are including as an attachment a cost estimate of
everything owned by APS that we have provided for the animal shelter. Replacement value of
APS owned assets relating to animal shelter operations would be $279,841. Total annual
operating expenses and assets equals$1,282,335. In 1990, APS also contributed $60,000 for
shelter improvements that allowed construction of a multipurpose room, office and bathroom.
The fact that APS is a 501(c) 3 nonprofit charitable organization further assists us in receiving
donations of money, food, and other necessary items needed on a daily basis at the animal
shelter. The value of these donations is approximately$35,000 per year. Volunteers donate
approximately 26,000 hours each year. The future of APS is stable as there are financial
bequests, wills, and endowments that will be coming to term over the next 50 years. This
stability is important as the APS Board plans for the future and reviews the priorities on a
continuing basis. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the County to duplicate
APS programs and support.
Also attached is a survey of surrounding county animal shelters. Upon review, it is clear that the
Orange County/APS partnership is a leader in shelter operations and adoption programs. We
offer 24 hour Emergency Animal Response Service (EARS), foster care programs, veterinary
services, low cost and low income spay/neuter services, dog training and behavior modification,
a pet problem hotline, cruelty investigation, and many other programs that most communities do
not have access to. Our spay/neuter clinic has been successful at lowering the animal population
in Orange County thereby preventing more unwanted animals and assisting with disease control
in the community. APS rabies clinics vaccinate anywhere from.500 to more than 1000 animals
each year. We are in the process of building the APS "Halfway Home"Adoption Center at our
Sanctuary property in western Orange County which will house all animals pending adoption
from the animal shelter as they undergo spay/neuter surgery and are awaiting their final
adoption. This will free up space at the Orange County Animal Shelter, allowing more animals
to stay longer and increasing their chances for adoption. We are projecting that this project will
increase the adoption rate by as much as 10%.
The APS has successfully managed the Orange County Animal Shelter for more than 20 years.
Our proven track record of quality care for animals and providing outstanding programs and
services for the community shows the value of the relationship between the County and APS and
the irreplaceable benefits to the community.
Thank you for your review of our position. Please do not hesitate to contact us through Laura
Walters should you have any questions or desire further information.
8
Tyne of Inspection NCDA&CS,VETERINARY DIVISION
New ❑ P.O.BOX 26026,RALEIGH,NC 27611 INDOOR ❑
Annual ❑ r Phone: 919/733-7601,Fax: 919/733-2277 OUTDOOR ❑
Follow-Up e! BOTH
(Prev. Inspection Date)
Complaint It/ ANIMAL WELFARE INSPECTION
Courtesy ❑
Random ❑
GPS Coordinates - N: m■ W: m
QBSP Number— =— I _tt
BUSINESS N ME: -a ,�%r LICENSE#:
Qom:
ADDRESS: t n
TELEPHONE: f- 2 9 O � • ._ COUNTY
TYPE FACILI : Animal Shelter p--Boarding Kenni? ❑ Dealer ❑ Pet Shop ❑ PuiAic Auction ❑
Number of Primary Enclosures c' Animals Present: Dogs Cats ,�rjC�„•e `'
Inspector.- " Mirk'W'in box if ade� uate -•Circle itei<n number if inadequate.11 Use NA if not applicable
STRUCTURE SANITATION SPECIAL ITEMS
Housing Facilities L11. Waste Disposal Records
1. Structure& Repair 12. Odor g (23. Description of Animals
2. Ventilation&Temp. V. Ceiling,,Wall,Floors 24. Records/Vet Treatment
$0. Lighting 14. Primary Enclosures 25. Origin/Disposition
4. Ceiling,Wall,Floors K 15. Equipment& Supplies M. 4bwwding4mml)
5. Storage 6. Washrooms,Sinks,Basins
rat 6. Water Drainage 17. Insect/Vetmin Control Transportation
18. Building& Grounds V27. Care in Transit Discussed
Primary Enclosures iUSBANDRY
7. Structure& Repair )(19. Adequate Feed/Water ' Veterinary Care
8. Space V20. Food Storage 28. Isolation Facility
9. Ventilation&Temp. 21. Personnel 29. No Signs of Illness/
10.Adequate Shelter f22. Animals' Appearance Treated
Item Number Explanation of Inadequacy(circled items above)And Date Corrections
Recommendation For Com fiance Must Be Completed
VAPPROVED ❑ DISAPPROVED Date: �� ! �� =—'" Time:
Veterinarian: , 12 �kJ ---^•. Telephone: (�� , 5V4- .2 3 29 7
' v ! ,� 'r
AW-2 s '
nspector nature yL b er/Author Agent's Signature
Rev.7/01 White=Office Canary= Inspector Pink= Owner
REGIONAL SURVEY OF ANIMAL SHELTERS
ORANGE COUNTY Total#of Animal Annually: 6,256
Adoption Rate: 42%
Euthanasia Rate: 43%
Reclaim Rate: 12%
Vet on Staff? Yes.
Spay/Neuter Program? On site clinic
Vaccinations within 24 hours? Yes
Foster Program? Very active
24 Hour Emergency Care? Yes, Shelter Employees
WAKE Total# of Animals Annually: 7,804
Adoption Rate: 28%
Euthanasia Rate: 65%
Reclaim Rate: 6%
Vet on Staff. No
Spay/Neuter Program? Contract with local veterinarians
Vaccinations within 24 hours? Yes
Foster Program? Very limited
24 Hour Emergency Care? Yes, County Animal Control
DURHAM Total#of Animals Annually: 6,000
Adoption Rate: 19%
Euthanasia Rate: 70%
Reclaim Rate: 11%
Vet on Staff? No
Spay/Neuter Program? SNAP van once per week
Vaccinations within 24 hours? Yes
Foster Program? Active
24 Hour Emergency Care? Yes, County Animal Control
CHATAM Total#of Animals Annually: 1,877
Adoption Rate: 7%
Euthanasia Rate: 71%
Reclaim Rate: 5%
Vet on Staff? No
Spay/Neuter Program? No
Vaccinations within 24 hours? No
Foster Program? No
24 Hour Emergency Care? No
RANDOLPH Total#of Animals Annually: 6,075
Adoption Rate: unknown
Euthanasia Rate: 90%
Reclaim Rate: unknown
Escaped: unknown
Vet on Staff? No
Spay/Neuter Program? No
Vaccinations within 24 hours? No
Foster Program? No
24 Hour Emergency Care?No
CASWELL Total#of Animals Annually: 2,183
Adoption Rate: .07
Euthanasia Rate: 89%
Reclaim Raie: .03%
Vet on Staff No
Spay/Neuter Program: No
Vaccinations within 24 hours? No
24 Emergency Care? No
10:40 AM ANIMAL PROTECTION SOCIETY
10/09/02
Cash Basis -- EXPENSE/ASSET Sheet _
2002 OCAS YEARLY OPERATION EXPENSES AND ASSETS
ASSETS
PHONE SYSTEM 6,705.00
SAFE 503.50
FREEZERS 2,500.00
REFRIGERATORS 1,500.00
'92 PLY VAN(TRANSPORT S/N ANIMALS) 4,000.00
DT PUBLISHER 3,178.89
PA SYSTEM 1,372.68
STORAGE SHED 2,000.00
COMPUTERS 30,000.00
SOFTWARE 10,000.00
WRAL WEB CAM 1,370.66
MISC.CAGES 5,700.00
METAL ANIMAL CAGES(101) 32,421.00
ANIMAL TRAPS 2,500.00
VET ROOM EQUIPMENT 6,000.00
WIRE CAGES .2,000.00
OFFICE FURNITURE 10,000.00
UPDATED PHONE ENHANCEMENT 2,000.00
EARS VAN 22,000.00
ACO TRUCK 15,000.00
WASHER/DRYER 1,000.00
NIGHT DEPOSIT BOXES 4,500.00
SECURITY SYSTEM 26,000.00
DOG BEDS 3,750.00
MICROSCOPES 1,500.00
DRUG SAFES 400.00
SURGERY TABLES 6,000.00
ANIMAL SCALES 700.00
SURGERY LIGHTS 3,000.00
LARYNGOSCOPE 500.00
MOBILE INSTRUMENT STAND 700.00
ANESTHESIA MACHINES(3) 20,000.00
AUTOCLAVES(2) 10,000.00
IV STANDS 400.00
ELECTRO-CAUTERY MACHINE 900.00
PULSE-OXIMETER 1,500.00
SCRUB SINK 1,500.00
OTOSCOPESIOPHTHALMOSCOPES 700.00
X-RAY MACHINE 11,840.00
X-RAY VIEWERS/MAINT 1,300.00
MICROWAVES 300.00
COPIER 7,400.00
MISC.ASSETS(BOOKS,NETS,CAMERAS,ETC) 10.000.00
TATOO GUN 200.00
MISC.SURGERY EQUIP 5,000.00
TOTAL 279,841.73
Page 1 of 2
10:40 AM ANIMAL PROTECTION SOCIETY
10/09/02
Cash Basis _ - EXPENSE/ASSET Sheet _
EXPENSES:
NC SALES TAX 9,600.00
COPIER SUPPLIES 4,000.00
ADVERTISING 7,000.00
COST OF GOODS SOLD 5,600.00
UNIFORMSISCUBS 1,500.00
ACO EXPENSES(SALARY,EQUIP,FUEL,ETC.) 44,202.00
PAYROLL 518,869.00
MEDICARE/FICA 35,806.00
HEALTH,DENTAL,DISABILITY INSURANCE 59,172.00
RETIREMENT 18,694.00
WORKMANS COMP 10,802.00
SUTA(UNEMPLOYMENT) 2,400.00
OFFICE FORMS(PRINTING) 8,000.00
STAMPS/MAILINGS 5,000.00
OFFICE SUPPLIES 4,600.00
VET SUPPLIES/EXPENSE 75,337.00
SUPPLIES 28,675.00
ANIMAL FOOD 18,000.00
LITTER BEDDING 2,500.00
BODY DISPOSAL SUPPLIES 5,900.00
CPA/PAYCHEX EXPENSE 7,900.00
MEMBERSHIPS/PERMITS 750.00
LIABILITY INSURANCE 6,500.00
CREDIT CARD FEES/BOUNCED CHECK FEES 4,050.00
STAFF TRAINING 3,600.00
STAFF RABIES VACCINES 4,836.00
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 1,100.00
VEHICLE FUEL 3,300.00
VEHICLE INSURANCE 950.00
EQUIPMENT/REPAIR 7,400.00
CRUELTY EXPENSE 850.00
EDUCATIONIWORKSHOPS 6,600.00
MICROCHIPS 28,500.00
RABIES CLINICS 900.00
PROPANE 3,650.00
ELECTRICITY 14,750.00
TELEPHONE 9,800.00
WATER/SEWER 5,200.00
EARS 18,000.00
MISC.EXPENSE 8,200.00
TOTAL 1,002,493.00
GRAND TOTAL 1,282,334.73
Page 2 of 2