HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-08-20 Work Session Minutes
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, August 20, 2012
Page 1 of 7
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF WORK SESSION
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
MONDAY, AUGUST 20, 2012
___________________________
Present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone and Alan Unger; Commissioner
Tammy Baney was out of the office. Also present were Erik Kropp, Interim County
Administrator; Dan Sherwin, Road Department; David Givans, Internal Auditor;
representatives from the Humane Society of Redmond, the Humane Society of
Central Oregon, Bend Spay/Neuter Project, and a few other citizens, including
media representative Erik Hidle of the Bulletin.
Chair DeBone opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m.
1. Annual Update from Humane Society of Redmond and Humane Society of
Central Oregon.
Representing the Humane Society of Redmond was Chris Bauersfeld, Don
Wayne, and another person who did not sign in. Representing the Humane
Society of Central Oregon was Cathy Oles, Crystal Mendiguen and two others
who did not sign in.
HSCO representatives stated they are trying to focus on standards of care. The
annual report is not yet complete. They are providing vouchers for spay and
neuter for those with a demonstrated need, but the veterinarian community is
not being as cooperative as it used to be. They are providing food for pets so
people can keep them, but they have to demonstrate a true need. Placement
rates for dogs are much higher than it is for cats. About 80% of adoptable
animals overall are placed, which is better than most shelters.
They were named the nonprofit of the year by the Source newspaper. The
public service announcements from the County for licensing dogs has helped to
return more dogs to their owners. They started a program to track volunteer
hours, and between the shelter and the thrift store, it equals about 10.5 FTE.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, August 20, 2012
Page 2 of 7
Ms. Mendiguen said there have been changes internally. The 2010 Association
of Shelter Veterinarians white paper listed what is acceptable and what is not.
No shelter anywhere satisfies all guidelines. There are 560 guidelines and 137
were problem areas at HSCO. They implemented changes on 63 of them,
including cat housing, which was too small. They got new cat condos to give
more space.
Another representative said these are the ones with a low monetary impact.
Others will need specific funding plans. They are outlining a strategic plan and
goals. This will focus somewhat on community cats, but they have had no time
or ability to partner. They hope to start a dialogue soon. They realize the Board
is concerned about this. Much is education and they are also working on the
potential of TNR (trap, neuter, release). However, many people do not want the
cats back. This needs to be targeted, since a blanket approach does not work.
They developed a disaster plan on how to get the animals out of the shelter in
the event of a wildfire. They have unaudited financials available to review.
Funding from the County has been through grants and licensing, and boarding
and cremation services.
Chair DeBone asked if cats get dropped off by officials, generating a boarding
fee. Toni said that this seldom happens so little of this is billed. Commissioner
Unger noted that the laws mostly apply to dogs.
Mr. Kropp asked if compliance to the guidelines is audited or monitored.
Crystal said it is through self-assessment; there is no one to come in and
analyze, and no outside agency to offer oversight and compliance to guidelines.
Commissioner Unger stated they have received a lot of e-mails regarding
concerns about cats, dogs and operations. The County does not manage shelters
but gets requests on what to do. There is a lot of interest out there and they are
looking for specific outcomes. He sees this as the shelter’s job.
A HSCO representative indicated that the HSCO board is making a
fundamental shift to be just a policy board, and leave operations to others and
not get involved at that level. For instance, this could be regarding how many
animals are euthanized or if behavior issues can be addressed. This takes
money and time and sometimes is not an option. One area would be to add
some capability to train or evaluate dogs. They are sensitive to this.
A HSCO representative added that volunteers need to focus on the needs of the
dogs and cats while staff deals with operational needs.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, August 20, 2012
Page 3 of 7
Mr. Kropp said that they show more revenue than expenditures last year. He
was told that the overall budget is higher and they do have a positive cash flow.
There are other sources of income besides operations. The budgeted at a loss
knowing that there is a cash resource to cover some of this. It is different this
year; they have department managers more involved. They had money in the
bank to be able to do more and enhanced the budget with reserves as needed.
Chris Bauersfeld of the Humane Society of Redmond said they are a high-save
shelter, saving 98% of the dogs and 96% of the cats they accept. They took in
about 2,000 animals, including dogs from other states.
They try hard to address dog behavior issues, to make them more adoptable.
They also adopted guidelines. They had to be creative as well. They made the
cages somewhat bigger. With the help of volunteers and donations, they were
able to meet many standards.
They have an active dog program of mentoring and walking. Dogs are
sometimes there too long. They developed a program for individual dogs,
rewarding volunteers when things go well.
They have a new program to identify dogs that do not do well in shelters,
including off-site placements and a trainer for up to four dogs. It has been very
successful. They try to teach people how to properly play with cats, and have a
few colony rooms with other cats.
The volunteer program is robust and equals about 15 FTE. They did not bring
financials today. They have a small budget so depend on volunteers. They
spayed/neutered 1396 animals last year and provided emergency medical care
for some. They get referrals from the vet community.
They give away as much food as they can to those who need it, through a
screening process.
When asked about open admission or a waiting list, Ms. Bauersfeld said they
try to get people to do other things first, as part of the education process. They
refer them to other groups as well. People need to be responsible with their
animals. They have to prioritize and do triage. They also have to plan for
intake of animals from the City and County. The only big issue right now is pit
bulls, which are harder to place. They try to hook them up with a trainer, but
they have no funds for a full-time trainer. Some dog walkers will take them
home. Dog trainers spend their own money on continuing education.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, August 20, 2012
Page 4 of 7
They will spend some time this year looking at their donor base and at board
development. Many already put in too much time. Most employees are part -
time. They are trying hard to be fiscally aware of issues and try to get the job
done.
Mr. Kropp asked if they predict a balanced budget . Mr. Wayne said they are
working on the next fiscal year budget. They anticipate a $35,000 net loss for
2012-13. However, they have endowments coming in and are being aggressive
with expenses and intake.
Ms. Bauersfeld said they want to form some alliances in particular regarding
TNR. Some other things will come up. This is a positive thing for the
community. They have a big cat problem and something has to be done. It is a
nightmare. Cats transcend the problem. They do not see any coming in from
the City or County, so no one gets billed. There is no money in the cats and
they drain resources. They have to find a way to engage the community more.
A HSCO representative asked where the problems are with the cat issues.
Megan Wellinghoff of BSNP said they are all over, in Redmond, La Pine,
Prineville, and all the cities. BSNP knows the neighborhoods. If someone says
there are two or three cats, there are probably 10 to 20. People want help
trapping and altering cats or want them gone. There is no magic, but they
advocate TNR. They have traps to loan out. They will spay or neuter stray or
feral cats free for the public. Removing the cats does not work; others will fill
in the space. Over time, attrition of altered cats will eliminate the high
numbers.
There was a colony of up to twenty when she moved five years ago. Now there
are just two. They are ear tipped so it is obvious they are altered. They do not
look to the County to fund this entirely, but are looking for grants. There needs
to be an alliance of the groups.
Spay and neuter is the right direction. Sheltering them is the problem.
Spay/neuter takes the load off sheltering; focus on spay/neuter so they do not
end up in a shelter; prevention instead of treating the resulting probl em.
Ms. Bauersfeld said they get a lot of calls from Crooked River Ranch and
mobile home parks. They are not animal control. They do not take animals
from Jefferson County and Jefferson County will not do anything. They also
gets calls from Crook County.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, August 20, 2012
Page 5 of 7
Ms. Wellinghoff said trapping and euthanizing cats costs about $50 per cat. It
is estimated there are at least 20,000 stray or abandoned cats in Deschutes
County. It is neither possible nor ethical to eradicate them; that is not the
answer. TNR is one way to deal with many and is more cost-effective. Ms.
Bauersfeld said they are doing TNR on some, but they will not go get them.
People have to bring them in; they do surgeries and send them back. They also
combo test them, and about 3% are positive and are destroyed.
Commissioner Unger asked who is taking the lead on getting grants. Ms.
Wellinghoff said HSCO was to write a big grant, but the deadline was August
31. So, this puts it off until February.
A HSCO representative indicated they need a five-year plan, which is a lot
more work. HSCO just deals with animals that are brought to the shelter and
does not deal with those in the community.
Ms. Bauersfeld stated that the local veterinarians are on board with this effort if
they can be compensated appropriately with grant funds. They do not want to
spend their own resources on this kind of thing, TNR or dealing with stray cats.
Mr. Wayne added that some grants are very specific. It is a real commitment.
Ms. Wellinghoff said that one huge piece is educating the public more. They
need to think about their own pets and be responsible. They need to know their
pet may be contributing to the bigger problem. Another way to get money out
of the public to help deal with this is asking for a percentage of property taxes.
Education is the key. It is a start.
Margarita Callejo, a volunteer, suggested the shelters think about hiring or
training someone to do TNR; trapping and transporting. Relying on volunteers
is almost impossible. She helped a disabled woman who was feeding
community cats, and ended up with more than 50 to be altered. It is too hard to
do this by just relying on volunteers. You will never catch up with the
increasing population without a concerted effort during a specific and
compressed time period, preferably starting this winter before the cats are
breeding again, with enough people to do it. The problem is everywhere in this
area.
Mr. Kropp said that Commissioner Baney hopes to set up some kind of meeting
of the groups to address this situation.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, August 20, 2012
Page 6 of 7
2. Consideration of Board Approval of an Application for Title 2 RAC
Funding for Weed/Vegetation Educational Programs.
Dan Sherwin explained the application for the grant, which they have had for
three years. Each year the amount lessens. This funding would be a
modification to the previous grant. He is applying for the $28,000 amount
based on the in-kind match, but the amount to be granted is yet unknown. It is
up to the Federal government as to what, if anything, is granted, although they
have been supportive in the past.
UNGER: Move approval of grant application as proposed.
DEBONE: Second.
VOTE: UNGER: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes.
3. Other Items.
Mr. Kropp stated that Health Services needs approval of a grant application for
$10,000 to assess adolescent health issues.
UNGER: Move approval of grant application as proposed.
DEBONE: Second.
VOTE: UNGER: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes.
___________________________
Mr. Kropp said there was a discretionary grant discussion on Wednesday, and
staff will recommend how to handle community grants. Maybe there should be
a percentage for each category; maybe quarterly on discretionary grants, and
not allowing more than one type of grant per year.
Chair DeBone asked for a list of what has been requested and granted, as some
have contacted him and he does not know if they already got one.
___________________________
The Board then reviewed upcoming meetings and plans.
Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 2:50 p.m.
DATED this Y'"f~ Dayof ¥ ' 2012 for the
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners~
Anthony DeBone, Chai;=
Alan Unger, Vice Chair
ATTEST:
lSSloner ~~
Recording Secretary
Minutes of Board of Commissioners ' Work Session Monday, August 20, 2012
Page 7 of7
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 -Fax (541) 385-3202 -www.deschutes.org
WORK SESSION AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
1:30 P.M., MONDAY, AUGUST 20, 2012
1. Annual Update from Humane Society of Redmond and Humane Society of
Central Oregon
2. Consideration of Board Approval of an Application for Title 2 RAC Funding
for Weed/Vegetation Educational Programs -Erik Kropp
3. Other Items
PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting. an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e). real
property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)( d), labor negotiations; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues.
Meeting dates. times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board ojCommissioners' meeting rooms at
1300 NW Wall St .• Bend. unless otherwise indicated. Ifyou have questions regarding a meeting. please call 388-6571.
Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible.
Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service forlTY.
Please call (54l ) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information.
o
N
, I I
...... o
I ~
I I I ~
-~
'" '"QI
L.
"0
"0
to
'n;
E
I
QI
~
QI
C o .r:::.
Q.
1
I I
'+o
1 J
H -umane
Society
of Redmond
Annual Report to Deschutes County
August 20, 2012
Animal Shelter Statistics (2011): Dogs Cats
Total Intake 1117 900
Adoptions· 774 721
Return to Owner 279 68
Transferred Out 53 a
Euthanized 22 43
•Adoptions increased by over 23% from the previous year.
Community Outreach: We estimate that we support over 5,000 families annually
from all over Central Oregon
Low Cost Spay/Neuter Program: A service to our community provides low cost spay
and neuter services for cats and dogs. Program focus is for those who cannot afford
traditional avenues for these services.
Outside Spay and Neuter Surgeries 1,396 Animals
Inside Spay and Neuter Surgeries 1,005 Animals
Community Emergency Medical Care: For pets in need of emergency medical care
whose owners 'cannot afford traditional sources. We provide medical care, pain relief,
and eliminate suffering for these animals. We offer reduced rates on treatments and
affordable payment terms.
Animals Treated for Emergency Care 206 Animals
Community Education: To introduce the many services provided by our shelter to our
community, two open houses were held. Over 100 visitors met with our veterinarian,
shelter staff, and volunteers, all of whom provided information about pet care, the
importance of spay and neuter, training, and other programs .
Page 1
Volunteerism: Volunteers fill an important role in our organization, providing
leadership, manpower, and animal interaction without cost. It would be impossible to run
our shelter and thrift store without our volunteers. Each year , volunteers provide the
equivalent of 15 FTE's (with an employee value of over $500,000). Some 100 core
volunteers provide the bulk of the 27,000 logged volunteer hours.
In the past year we have focused on increasing our volunteers and the services they
provide for our animals. Some of the many programs run by and with volunteers
include :
Foster Programs: Our foster programs are run by a talented volunteer with over
60 placement families available for:
Kittens and Puppies too young for adoption
Older animals with medical issues making them unlikely candidates for
adoption (UFospice" Program)
Animals in need of rehabilitation, better served outside the shelter
Last year, approximately 115 animals were in foster care at some time during
their stay . .
Dog Buddy Volunteers: A dedicated group of 1 00 volunteers take our dogs for
walks daily to help maintain the physical and mental stability of the animals. A
volunteer runs the program, scheduling walkers and making sure the dog is
properly chosen for the ability of the walker.
A new program called "Dog-gone", created and designed by the core 30
dog walkers, assigns a longer term dog to a walker. A detailed training
program is established for the dog, and points are rewarded to the walker
as their rehabilitation efforts lead to a successful adoption. This program
has proven effective in reducing stay times for some of our less popular
breeds and individual dogs .
The Smoke Jumper crews, homed near Redmond Airport, come to our
shelter and take our dogs for runs during their training exercises . The
best runners among our dogs get a great workout with the Smoke
Jumpers.
Community Schools: One of our volunteer dog trainers has visited local
schools, with some of our dogs, providing education on the proper treatment of
animals and pet needs. A small program at present due to limited resources and
materials; this will be a focus of future volunteer driven programs.
Page 2
Physically and Developmentally Disabled Community Members: For those
with health challenges, our volunteers provide interaction with our animals and
teach proper methods for pet care.
Off·Site Adoption Events: Volunteers run these important events, increasing
the adoption opportunities for our animals. A full calendar of events including
adoption events at Pet Co and PetSmart, Bend Farmer's market, Sisters Fair and
Fall Festival, Chico's, Orvis , Music on the Green, etc. Each of these events
allows us to reach out to the community with information and education about
animal care and the resources available.
Other Services: Volunteers provide support for our front desk, marketing, donor
development, and other important roles in the operation of the organization.
Memberships: Our membership base increased by 45% du ring the f irst seven months
of this year. This large increase is due in part to a telethon member drive and an e
news/etter, The Shelter Scoop, sent to 1300 contacts. Our Facebook fans increased
from 100 to 614 and it enjoys one of the highest fan engagement ratios of any
organization in Central Oregon -by a wide margin. In 2011 we made an effort to track,
measure and report on 'key metrics ' for growing our support base .
Board of Directors: We are actively seeking new board members with specific skills to
fill out the needed roles on our board.
Recent Additions: We've added two new board members, one a Human
Resources Specialist and the second a local business professional having
experience with local government. A lawyer has expressed an interest in joining
our board and will probably join in September or October . A CPA is providing his
expert assistance in preparation of our financial documents and reviewing our
accounting practices .
What we do every day!
Page 3
•
HSCO ANNUAL NUMBERS
FY 11-12
• Provided 346 spay/neuter vouchers -$171 90 in
services to economically challenged households.
• Low income food pantry provided approx. 1170
individuals with pet food, helping keeping pets with
their families.
.. Placement rate of 87% for dogs, 68% for cats and
95% for small animals. Nationa1 placement rate for
open admission shelters 2009 Madd'ie's Fund -55%
• Returned 995 pets to their owners.
• Adopted out 1480 animals to forever homes.
• 580 volunteers providing 22062 hours of service,
equating to 10.5 FTE.
•
,.. .
THE ASV GUIDELINES FOR STANDARDS OF
CARE IN ANIMAL SHELTERS
• Dr. Crystal Mendiguren has completed a one-year ASPCA
fellowship through UC Davis Koret Shelter Medicine Program
entirely focused on implementing change at HSCO with
respect to the "Guidelines."
• Presenter at National HSUS conference in May.
Guidelines for
Standards of Care in
Animal Shelte rs I
I
•
HSCO'S RESPONSE TO THE
II GUIDELINES"
• 560 total guidelines
~ HSCO had 137 guidelines for which we had
problems as identified in February 2011
Since then we have implemented changes in our
organization to remedy 63
• Examples -Cat Isolation housing -Unacceptable
Remedied by purchasing new cat condo's for
isolation room
•
•
STRATEGIC PLAN
• Current Plan is in full execution with detailed implementation
plans either completed or at mid-point for the following areas:
It Thrift store Operations, Donor Development and Relationships,
Board Effectiveness and Customer Service.
• Development started for 2014 -17 Strategic Plan:
• Potential Areas of Focus:
• Continued Implementation of ASV Guidelines.
• Refocus Education and Community Outreach to inspire care
for all animals. Emphasis on prevention components.
It In what ways can we carry out our mission and serve more
animals by forming strategic partnerships to address issues like
Feral "Community Cats" and Trap, Neuter, Release, vet care
for low income residents, etc.
• How can we be proactive and ready for a large influx of
animals due to natural disaster such as fire or hoarding cases?
•
,
2011-12 Year
End F inancials '
Unaudited and requiring board approval as of 8/20/12
'" of
. BUDGET COMPARISON REPORT
June 2012 Budaet ComDarison • All
For the year
Year To Date
% Actual to
Total % Variance Annual
Revenue
4010 Adopllon Fees 103,413.00 6.25% 106,950.00 (3,537.00) -3.31% 106,950.00 3,537.00
4012 Boarding 29,158.66 1.76% 32,000.00 (2,841.34) -8.88% 32,000.00 2,841.34
4013 Boarding-City 45,624.00 2.76% 51,200.00 (5,576.00) -10.89% 51,200.00 5,576.00
4014 Boarding-County 48,806.00 2.95% 58,750.00 (9,944.00) -16.93% 58,750.00 9,944.00
4020 Cash Over/Under 20.91 0.00% 120.00 (99.09) -82.58% 120.00 99.09
4025 County land Contract 17,500.00 1.06% 17,500.00 0.00 0.00% 17,500.00
4060 Cremation Services 48,805.00 2.95% 46,700.00 2,105.00 4.51% 46,700.00 (2,105.00)
4061 Cremation Services -City 2,943.00 0.18% 2,755.00 188.00 6.82% 2,755.00 (188.00)
4062 Cremation Services-County 2,545.00 0.15% 3,150.00 (605.00) -19.21% 3,150.00 605.00
4065 Cremation Services -Vets 110,519.20 6.68% 97,200.00 13,319.20 13.70% 97,200.00 (13,319.20)
4066 license Fees-County 2.57% 35,600.00 6,917.37 19.43% 35,600.00 (6,917.37)
4067 license Fees -Shelter 21,234.31 1.28% 17,700.00 3,534.31 19.97% 17,700.00 (3,534.31)
4068 Micro Chip Clinic 4,554.00 0.28% 4,000.00 554.00 13.85% 4,000.00 (554.00)
4070 Pet Supplies/Accessories 7,391.06 0.45% 7,295.00 96.06 1.32% 7,295.00 (96.06)
4071 Poster Relail Sales 100.00 0.01% 100.00 (100.00)
4072 Book Retail Sales (Maly & Mimi) 120.00 0.01% 120.00 (120.00)
4075 SiliPint Retail Sales 4,869.00 0.29% 4,869.00 (4,869.00)
4080 SNAP Vouchers 8,512.50 0.51% 6,780.00 1,732.50 25.55°" 6,780.00 (1,732.50)
4089 Exam Fees 70.00 0.00% 10.00 (70.00)
4090 Grant Funds 41,561.21 2.51% 10,000.00 31,561.21 315.61% 10,000.00 (31,561.21)
4095 Donations 169,798.36 10.26% 189,430.00 (19,631.64) -10.36% 189,430.00 19,631.64
4100 Donaled Materials 54,631.68 3.30% 46.000.00 8.631.68 18.76% 46,000.00 (8,631.68)
4101 Donaled Aulo: lease Income 3,600.00 0.22% 3,600.00 0.00% 3,600.00 0.00
4105 Seasonal location Income 182,947.70 11.05% 155,000.00 27,947.70 18.03% 155,000.00 (27,947.70)
4149 Pawsitive Books Income 21,169.58 1.28% 14,400.00 6,769.58 47.01% 14,400.00 (6,769.58)
4199 Sale of Donaled Items 544,380.58 32.89% 534,100.00 10,280.58 1.92% 534,100.00 (10,280.58)
4200 Special Events 1,585.00 0.10% 1,050.00 535.00 50.95% 1,050.00 (535.00)
4300 Golf Toumamenl Income 27,880.00 1.68% 26,000.00 1,880.00 7.23% 26,000.00 (1,880.00)
4400 Mull Strut Event Income 4,289.00 0.26% 5,000.00 (711.00) -14.22% 5,000.00 711.00
4500 Tuxes & Tails Event Income 101,254.01 6.12% 65,000.00 36,254.01 100.00% 65,000.00 (36.254.01 )
4710 Refunds (378.50) -0.02% (780.00) 401.50 -51.47% (780.00) (401.50)
4900 Sustainable Donor pgm Donations 16,000.00 (16,000.00) -100.00% 16,000.00 16,000.00
4999 Other Income/Shelter Fees 0.22%
Total Revenue
Expenses
6000 Adoption Expenses 14,265.97 0.86% 15.225.00 959.03 6.30% 15,225.00 959.03
6100 Advertising 3,975.23 0.24% 4,910.00 934.77 19.04% 4,910.00 934.77
6121 Aulo Repair & Maintenance 3,113.46 0.19% 2,950.00 (163.46) -5.54% 2,950.00 (163.46)
6122 Auto-Fuel & Mileage reimbursement 7.219.71 0.44% 7,190.00 . (29.71) -0.41% 7,190.00 (29.71 )
of FC June 2012 Financials Pre 990 Rtn Unaudited-Inlemal Use Only
Humane Society of Central Oregon
BUDGET COMPARISON REPORT
June 2012 Budget Comparison· All Departments
For the year ending 6/30/2012
Year To Date
% Actual to
Total % Variance Annual Annual Bgt
Actual Revenue Budget Variance to Budget Budget Remaining
6140 Bad Debt 1,834.70 0.11% 300.00 (1,534.70) 300.00 (1,534.70)
6145 Bank Fees/Credit Card Chg 12,921 .72 0.78% 12,560.00 (361.72) -2.88% 12,560.00 (361.72)
6147 PayPal Processing Fees 661.00 0 .04% 510.00 (151.00) -29.61% 510.00 (151.00)
6161 Computer/Consulting 2,485.22 0.15% 1,600.00 (885 .22) -55.33% 1,600.00 (885.22)
6163 Consulting & Tax Preparation 2,500.00 0 .15% 2,500.00 2,500.00
6165 CFO Consulting 16,075.00 0.97% 18,000.00 1,925.00 10.69% 18,000.00 1,925.00
6166 Copier Expense 2,931 .12 0 .18% 5,560 .00 2,628 .88 47 .28% 5,560.00 2,628.88
6255 Crematorium Expense 12,009.54 0 .73% 8,940 .00 (3,069 .54) -34 .33% 8,940.00 (3,069 .54)
6300 Golf Toumament Event Expense 9,333 .82 0 .56% 10,000.00 666 .18 6 .66% 10,000.00 666 .18
6310 Cargill Grant Expenses 302.50 0 .02% (302.50) (302 .50)
6319 Depreciation 86,558.99 5 .23% 86,985 .00 426 .01 0.49% 86,985.00 426 .01
6321 Donated Materials Expense 54,631.68 3 .30% 46,000.00 (8,631.68) -18.76% 46,000.00 (8 ,631 .68)
6322 Donated Auto : lease Expense 3,600.00 0 .22% 3,606.00 0.00% 3,600.00 0 .00
6360 Dues & Subscriptions 2,780.00 0 .17% 1,921.00 (859.00) -44.72% 1,921.00 (859.00)
6380 Educational Materials 444.95 0 .03% 300.00 (144 .95) 100 .00% 300.00 (144.95)
6385 EducationlTrainlng 1,435.81 0 .09% 2,698.00 1,262 .19 46 .78% 2,698.00 1,262.19
6400 Mutt Strut! Event Expense 3,928.26 0.24% 3,000.00 (928 .26) -30.94% 3,000.00 (928.26)
6450 End of life 1,076.61 0 .07% 1,100.00 23 .39 2.13% 1,100.00 23.39
6470 Equipment Rental Expense 509.70 0 .03% (509.70) (509 .70)
6481 Insurance 18,420.99 1.11% 23,520 .00 5,099 .01 21.68% 23,520.00 5,099 .01
6500 Tuxes & Tails Event Expense 25,643 .31 1.55% 25,000.00 (643.31) 100.00% 25,000.00 (643.31)
6540 laundry/Uniforms 1,446.50 0 .09% 600.00 (846 .50) -141 .08% 600.00 (846 .50)
6560 Outside Services (Legal,Other) 1,842 .00 0 .11% 3,860.00 2,018 .00 52 .28% 3,860 .00 2,018 .00
6580 licenses & Fees 3,322.00 0 .20% 2,357.00 (965 .00) -40.94% 2,357 .00 (965 .00)
6583 Materials for Resale 3,614.80 0 .22% 3,595 .00 (19.80) -0.55% 3,595 .00 (19.80)
6585 Materials & Supplies 36,627.06 2 .21% 36,209.00 (418 .06) -1 .15% 36.209.00 (418 .06)
6590 Clinic-Vaccine Expenses 7,777.02 0.47% 8,800.00 1,022 .98 11.62% 8,800.00 1,022 .98
6591 Clinic -Tests 5,788.29 0 .35% 7,260.00 1,471 .71 20.27% 7,260.00 1,471 .71
6592 Clinic-Medication Expense 5,801 .22 0 .35% 8,210.00 2 ,408 .78 29.34% 8,210.00 2 ,408.78
6593 Clinic -Surgery Supplies 12,183.62 0 .74% 13,811.00 1,627 .38 11.78% 13,811.00 1,627.38
6594 Clinic -Supplies 4,478.87 0 .27% 7,350.00 2,871.13 39.06% 7,350.00 2,871.13
6595 Miscellaneous 433 .00 0.03% 720.00 287 .00 39.86% 720.00 287.00
6597 Micro Chip Expense 1,034.95 0 .06% 850.00 (184 .95) -21 .76% 850.00 (184.95)
6686 Payroll Wages 791 ,414 .36 47.82% 769,298.00 (22,116 .36) -2.87% 769,298.00 (22,116 .36)
6687 Payroll Taxes 78 ,851.62 4.76% 76,930.00 (1,921 .62) -2.50% 76,930.00 (1,921.62)
6688 Worker's Comp 6 ,384 .85 0 .39% 8,700.00 2,315.15 26 .61% 8,700.00 2,315 .15
6689 Employee Benefits 77,433 .00 4.68% 78,363 .00 930 .00 1.19% 78,363.00 930 .00
6690 IRA Match 10,880 .92 0 .66% 6,720 .00 (4 ,160.92) -61 .92% 6,720.00 (4,160 .92)
6692 Employee Excellence Program 216.92 0 .01% 500.00 283 .08 -100.00% 500.00 283 .08
6701 Postage 4,328.61 0.26% 4,800.00 471 .39 9 .82% 4,800.00 471 .39
6702 Printing 7 ,430.00 0.45% 7 ,430.00 0.00 0.00% 7 ,430 .00 0 .00
,_ Copy Of FC June 2012 Financials_Pre 990 Rtn Unaudited-Intemal Use Only 2
Humane Society of Central Oregon
BUDGET COMPARISON REPORT
June 2012 Budget Comparison -All Departments
For the year ending 6/30/2012
Year To Date
% Actual to
Total % Variance Annual Annual Bgt
Actual Revenue Bud!i!et Variance to Budget Budget Remaining
6800 Repairs & Maintenance 37,946 .97 2.29% 28,920 .00 (9,026 .97) -31 .21% 28 ,920.00 (9.026.97)
6820 Security 1,054.80 0 .06% 1,020 .00 (34.80) -3.41% 1,020.00 (34 .80)
6825 Storage Units 7,920.10 0.48% 10,200.00 2,279 .90 22 .35% 10,200.00 2,279.90
6826 SNAP Reimbursement 16,080 .00 0 .97% 11,050.00 (5,030.00) -45 .52% 11,050.00 (5,030 .00)
6841 Special Event Expenses 10,647.55 0 .64% 7,000.00 (3,647 .55) -52.11% 7,000.00 (3,647 .55)
6842 Clinic Equipment 1,772.80 0 .11% 1,140 .00 (632.80) -55 .51% 1,140.00 (632 .80)
6844 Travel/Lodging 1,913.35 0.12% 1,750.00 (163 .35) -9.33% 1,750.00 (163.35)
6848 Vet Reimbursement 1,288 .34 0.08% 3,000.00 1,711.66 57.06% 3,000.00 1,711 .66
6850 Volunteer Exp 3,895.60 0 .24% 2,400.00 (1,495 .60) -62.32% 2,400.00 (1,495 .60)
6860 Telephone & Intemet 7,432.85 0.45% 9,295.00 1,862 .15 20 .03% 9 ,295.00 1,862.15
6900 Electricity 20,982 .78 1.27% 22,250 .00 1,267.22 5 .70% 22,250 .00 1,267 .22
6901 Garbage 10,512 .15 0.64% 8,700.00 (1,812 .15) -20 .83% 8 ,700 .00 (1,812 .15)
6902 Natural Gas 62,636 .99 3 .78% 67,360.00 4 ,723.01 7.01% 67,360.00 4,723.01
6903 Water/Sewer 9,438.85 0 .57% 8 ,550.00 (888 .85) -10.40% 8 ,550.00 (888 .85)
6906 Web Work 2 ,699.75 0 .16% 3,120 .00 420.25 13.47% 3,120.00 420.25
6908 Seasonal Location Expense 27,118.35 1.64% 21,600.00 (5 ,518.35) -25.55% 21.600 .00 (5,518 .35)
6909 Temp .Warehouse Location Expense 12,327 .74 0.74% (12,327 .74) (12,327.74)
6949 Pawsitive Books Expenses 5,627 .30 0 .34% 480.00 (5 ,147.30) -1072.35% 480.00 (5,14730)
7999 Admin Cost Allocated 86,903.56 5.25% 102 ,719.00 15,815.44 15.40% 102,719.00 15,815 .44
TOTAL Expenses
Net Income (loss) from operations -~ ~ -:~~~~~'. ~~
1,678,148 .73
(23,104.20)
101 .40%
-1 .40%
1,641,286.00
(83,986.00)
(36,862.73)
60,881.80
-1239.94%
·72.49";'
1,641,286 .00
(83,986.00) .
(36 ,862 .73)
(60,881.80)
5100 Donation -Estates
9000 Vet Reimbursement-Daisy Fund
9 001 Daisy Fund Reimbursements
------~~
Other income:
5001 Cell Tower Revenue
5005 Dividends
5008 Foreign Dividend Tax
5010 Interest Income
5012 Capital Gain Distribution
5015 Realized Gain(Loss)
5020 UnRealized Gain(Loss)
5030 Gain(Loss) Disposal of Assets
5148 Brokerage Fees -Investments
Total other Income (loss)
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenditures
Copy of FC June 2012 Financials_Pre 990 Rtn
50 ,000 .00
50,000.00
47,656 .66
32 ,238.22
(80 .02)
10,641 .27
5,229.07
(8,456.03)
3 ,774 .54
(8,446.00)
(21 ,902 .00)
60,655 .71
87,551.51
3 .02% 50,000.00
0.00% (42,000.00) (42,000.00)
42,000.00 42,000.00
3 .02% 50,000.00
2 .88% 46,632.00 1,024.66
1.95% 27 ,700.00 4,538 .22
0 .00% (80.02)
0.64% 3,600 .00 7,041 .27
0 .32% 5,229.07
-0 .51% (8 ,456 .03)
0.23% 3,774.54
-0 .51% (8,446.00)
-1.32% (21 ,990.00) 88.00
3.66% ~5,942 . 00 4,713.(,1
5.29% (28,044.001 115,595.51
UnaUdited-Internal Use Only
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
300.00%
2.20%
16.38%
-100 .00%
195.59%
-100.00%
-100 .00%
-100.00%
-100.00%
-0.40%
-286.23%
-412.19%
(42 ,000 .00)
42,000.00
46 ,632 .00
27,700 .00
3,600 .00
(21,990.00)
55,942 .00
~(28,044.00l
(50,000 .00)
(42 ,000.00)
42,000.00
(50 ,000 .00)
(1 ,024.66)
(4,538 .22)
80.02
(7,041 .27)
(5,229.07)
8,456 .03
(3,774.54)
8,446 .00
(88.00)
(4,713.71)
(115,595.~1)
3
Bonnie Baker
From: Mike Kmet <kmet@wavecable.com>
Sent: Monday, August 20,201212:56 PM
To: Board
Subject: Animal Shelter input
Dear Commissioners,
I know you are busy so I will make this to the point, it's about the animal shelter issues you will be discussing.
Please ask the following;
-HSCO has at last I looked close to $500,000 is savings, why don't they spend more on spay and neuter, which is a major root of animal over
population.
-Ask HSCO what their Kill Rate is. It doesnt appear that HSCO has changed at all (they are still a High Kill Shelter) since The Source Weekly's
"License to Kill" article was written 5 years ago.
http://www.tsweekly.comlnews/local-news/licensed-to-kill-itics-say-humane-society-inflates-adoption-rates-at-animals-expense.html
-What HSCO considers un-adoptable may be because they over stress animals by putting them in small cages. On their 2 page annual report they
claim "open admission shelter, no animal in need is turned away" That's because they will put downlkill the animal some times the same day as it's
brought in. Read about Annie the healthy dog in the TS Weekly's article above, nothing has changed, if anything it's now worse.
-By HSCO own admission does not acknowledge funding by Dechutes county on their web page their quote "HSCO is a 501 c3 non-profit that is
dependant upon the generosity of donors. HSCO does not receive financial support from state or national organizations." you can read this
here; http://www.hsco.org/resources
Only buried in their abbreviated annual report is a mention of county funding. Perhaps you should provide funding to a shelter that will give more
back to the community, Craft gives more return on each dollar then anyone, they do this as its their passion, no salaries, no palace for workers, it's
cage free, which is less stressful to the animals, meaning they are adoptable easier.
Craft isn't as slick to the human eye as the other shelters, they put the animals first and it shows. That they operate on a shoe string ( appox 6% of
what HSCO operates on) and adopted out 50% MORE cats then HSCO.
-Craft adopted out 1238 cats in 2011, HSCO, 834 cats, 1602 animals total.
It is clear where the publics money should go,
Thank you for your time and service,
1
-----......"'4_,,<,i~~~_.~~~w-~~~~~~~~f~~'"iM ,y..,"""'~_' ..~--.--.-..........
Bonnie Baker
From: Sandra K. <sandrak@crestviewcable.com>
Sent: Monday, August 20,20121:04 PM
To: Board
Subject: Shelters'
Dear Sirs:
I am a rescue worker in Jefferson County. Myself and several others have taken on the job of rescuing cats & kittens, as we only have a dog pound
here.
If any of you are familiar with the Jefferson County Kennel, you would realize there is no shelter there either. The dogs live in chain link fenced
pens and their only shelter is small igloo dog houses winter and summer. There is no facility for cats & kittens.
I have rescued over 200 cats and kittens this year so far in a partnership with CRAFT which allows us to move these animals into their shelter where
they are able to be adopted out, receive the medical care many of them need so badly, and LIVE!! That's a huge undertaking for a relatively small
group of people. Our concerns are in saving the lives of these pets, educating the public in "responsible pet ownership" by spaying and neutering
their pets, and ultimately making the world a better place for all. This is not only a problem for the animals here, but also the people who are
surrounded by these homeless, starving animals who would have no other option but death if left alone.
Sincerely,
Sandra K. Ballard
Madras Rescue Group
541-475-3314
1
~~",,,,,,,,,,,,~,,,~~~~,.M....&ki1~~~~N~~~~~~J:i;,'·q~-4i I.k·:~_~';!~~!<\&'~~~'____________'
Bonnie Baker
From: Bill and Betty <betsandbill@bendcable.com>
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 11 :32 AM
To: Board
Subject: shelter funding
From: Bill & Betty Williams
sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 10:26 AM
To:
Subject: shelter funding sharing
I understand that there is a meeting today to discuss the new contracts of HSCO and HSR. Seeing as HSR is turning away cats and
kittens at the door, I have a solution to this overpopulation problem that is certainly more humane than euthanizing.
Why doesn't HSR utilize the back building, (event center) and set up a low cost spay/neuter clinic for cats and dogs. That building
is being heated and cooled at the expense of the taxpayer, however, no good really comes from it as it is not being used for the
benefit of the animals or the community. It appears to me that a low cost spay/neuter clinic would greatly reduce the amount of
unwanted puppies and kittens. If it could be done at a minimum cost to the pet owner, it would improve the lives of not only the
animals but the community.
By Redmond Humane sending these cats/kittens to CRAFT, because they claim that there just isn't room at the shelter, is totally
unfair to CRAFT and their volunteers who single handily take care of these animals. It would only be fair that CRAFT receive a
portion of the county/city contract as they operate strictly on donations and run the entire operation with only volunteers. CRAFT
is performing a real service to the community and receives zero tax dollar for their efforts.
We would like you to consider sharing a portion of the money that the shelters receive with CRAFT, as it appears to be the only fair
thing to do. They would still operate with strictly volunteers but funding for food and vet bills could be provided and would
certainly help immensely with their operation.
1
We would respectfully like you to seriously consider taking action on this issue as CRAFT really could use the monetary assistance
with their humane operation.
Thank you,
Mr. & Mrs. Bill Williams
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG -www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2437/5211 -Release Date: 08/20/12
2
•... _,:_."-"'.""_'''''~~";.....:''''''".,..''''~~.I<t;IIIIi"~'Ii!IIIo4>...~,~olI.WW __~;,;...~~.Ili.,,~!.j._~:~""""'1~""p~~.!lci1""~~."""~t:;J' "" ..------~,-"'.-.-,~_."
~
• Bonnie Baker
From: Janice Sershen <jansersh@bendbroadband.com>
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 11: 12 AM
To: Board
Subject: Input for Shelter Meeting today
Dear Commissioners,
I would like to provide my first-hand input and opinion regarding the welfare of the cats, in particular, in central Oregon; I have
been a volunteer trapper for spay/neuter purposes for the past 6-7 years, first for the Bend Spay/Neuter Project and then for
Craft; I regularly trap in Bend, Redmond, Sisters, and LaPine but most of the calls I receive are from Redmond. I am guessing I
have trapped hundreds of cats during that time period: my observation is that there is not enough emphasis on spay/neutering
to stop the prolific breeding of cats and now, with the poor economy, our volunteer group is getting calls to pick up the
abandoned cats due to owner eviction, or owner surrenders due to moving, etc.
In particular I would like to hear from both shelters as to what their plan is for spay/neutering purposes as I'm sure they
receive budgeting for this; they do very little in the way of advertising the need for this on their TV/radio/newspaper ads; do
they not believe it's the right way to go? What is HSCO's opinion of going towards being a no-kill shelter? A few years ago the
Maddie's Fund was available to shelters who were united in being truly "no -kill" ; a lot of money could be had through grants if
this is still available; more research into this fund would have to be done and I'd be willing to look into it. Just a long shot, but
what about the Redmond shelter's event center being used as a spay/neuter clinic?
I would also like to ask the shelters why they do not have trappers among their paid staff to help people who can not help
themselves; I do trapping at my own expense for gas, time, and it's not crowded out there - I never run into other
trappers! Why do the shelters think all people can handle the cat overpopulation problem themselves when, most cats are
strays/abandoned and people tell me all the time "they aren't my cats".
In regards to the euthanasia rate that HSCO publishes in their annual report; I would like to ask them if this number includes
those cats brought to them in traps; I am told that those cats are considered "unadoptable" and are automatically sent to the
1
'"
back room to be euthanized and not counted in their intake numbers; is this true? I can personally tell you that I have trapped
many, many cats in traps that are truly not "feral" but extremely scared; if any of us put our own house cats in traps you would
understand this behavior is not "feral". What is the HSCO ground rules for considering a cat to be "adoptable" or "not
adoptable"; I am told by former HSCO volunteers if the cats are black, scared, over a certain age (5?), not adjusting to life in a
tiny cage, or sick/injured that they are put down and that their crematorium is running every Tuesday with the "unadoptables".
I know the commissioners are hoping to gain a working relationship between the shelters and the volunteer rescue groups like
Craft; we have a long way to go! Speaking personally of my involvement with Craft, we are getting many, many calls to help the
abandoned, dumped, strays, cats being shot execution style (this happened last month in Sisters and Craft rescued over 20
cats/kittens from this property, two of the rescued cats had bullet wounds and one was shot while pregnant and subsequently
had its front leg amputated); and now, because the Ochoco shelter is in need of help, we are getting calls directly from
Prineville residents to help them.
Communication is lacking, for one thing, as even the local veterinarians are unaware, first of all, that the Redmond shelter is not
accepting cats and hasn't for a long time. For example, one Redmond couple last week took it upon themselves to trap a mom and
kittens from their yard; they took the cats to a Redmond Vet looking for help, who then referred them to another local vet,
who then referred them to the Redmond shelter (unaware that the shelter is not taking in cats); Craft was called and we are
now caring for the mom and babies.
I would also like to know the shelters' process when a microchipped cat is taken into their receiving room as a stray; for the
thousands of cats that have been adopted out through Craft, our group rarely receives a phone call from either shelter to help
them with their strays; if the owner of the chipped cat can't be located and the microchip is originally registered to Craft, why
are we not being called to help place this cat? Craft's policy is to take back any adopted cat, no questions asked, if it is not
being taken care of; being that HSCO is a high-kill shelter, I shudder to think how many of these cats are euthanized after
their time is up, by their standards.
Hoping the shelters will be honest and forthright in their responses to you as there is a real problem here in central Oregon in
regards to the very adoptable cats being warehoused in the backrooms and quietly euthanized without public record;
HSCO has the money, influence, media support, and public funding, with the thousands of dollars they receive in all their public
fundraisers, to make a positive difference in our community; other locations across the country have gone no-kill while
2
promoting unconditional spay/neutering; it can be done with the right amount of focus and attention.
Thank you in advance for addressing these issues.
janice sershen
Craft volunteer
Bend
5411598-5488
3
.)
August 20th
, 2012
Dear Deschutes County Board of Commissioners:
I am writing to you today to provide you with what I feel is valuable infonnation
regarding the future of animal welfare in Deschutes County. I am the current Executive
Director of Bend Spay and Neuter Project and have lived in Bend for 8 years. I have
been involved with local animal welfare issues here for about 5 years now. I have also
spent the past year working at a very large scale high volume, high quality, spay and
neuter clinic in Austin, TX. I was lucky enough to be able to see first hand how the most
successful large scale No Kill movement ever achieved is being implemented in Austin
and the impact it has had on the community, both people and animals.
Bend is a progressive, locally minded town with a huge heart for animals; I have
no doubt that the No Kill movement is coming to Bend in the near future. You may have
seen the editorial in the Source this week, a sign that may even be here already. I think
there will be strong community support for this, but there is no doubt that it will only be
possible with the support of our local government and guidance from government
officials and animal advocates from cities like Austin who have been successful in
becoming a No Kill City. In preparation for this movement, I would like to highlight
some of the important pieces that will need to be in place to make this a success (success
to the movement being defined as approximately 94% live outcome rate for an open
admission shelter like HSCO) for all of those who choose to throw their support behind
the movement. I feel that the two most important components of this process will be
ensure proper funding for both high volume/low cost (and FREE) spay and neuter
services for the public (Le. preventing the problem) AND continued funding for shelter
services (i.e. treating the problem). A strong emphasis needs to be placed on community
education concerning the importance of both spaying and neutering your pets, as well as
adopting animals from shelters and rescue groups.
In addition to spay/neuter, sheltering and education funding, there will need to be
a low cost veterinary resource of some kind, to provide help to both the public and local
shelters when they have sick or injured animals who are treatable. This could be a non
profit organization or if possible a publicly funded organization that requires income
qualifications for treatment to be provided. Currently, local low income pet owners who
have sick or injured pets often times have no choice but to surrender their pets to the
shelter as they have no place where they can afford to take them for treatment. This puts
a hefty financial burden on the shelter and in tum many of those pets end up being
euthanized unnecessarily. A low cost veterinary resource would keep pets out of shelters
and would ease the burden on shelters when they are faced with a treatable sick or injured
pet.
In Bend specifically, I believe that more shelter resources will need to be
allocated for cats in particular, as they have the highest euthanasia rates in our
area. Along those same lines, another component that is in place in Austin on a smaller
scale than what I feel is needed here in Bend, is a comprehensive, managed feral cat
population control plan. I believe this can be achieved through funding from a national
organization like PetSmart Charities, along with collaboration between our local shelters
and Bend Spay and Neuter Project to create a large scale Trap, Neuter, Return program
using vol unteers from our community . Education would playa vital role in this area as
well, as we would need the community's support to help make this a success. According
to calculations provided by the Journal of the American Veterinary Association and
PetSmart Charities, the number of estimated feral cats living in Deschutes County is
somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000. I have discussed this with other local animal
welfare leaders and we agree that the number could be much higher, and concentrated in
areas such as Redmond and LaPine, based on the number of phone calls we receive and
Trap, Neuter, Return work we've done in the past. Trapping and killing the feral cats has
been proven unsuccessful and is very expensive to taxpayers. The cost to trap and
euthanize a feral cat can be estimated on the low end at $50 per cat. At that price it
would cost over a million dollars to simply catch and kill all the cats in Deschutes
County, and it would be an ongoing process because they would continue to breed at a
rate of up to 14 kittens per year per female cat, 7 which could be female, each of which
will also have 14 kittens per year, you get the idea. The abundant proliferation abilities
of the cats would make the eradication process nearly impossible.
Attached is some additional information from Dorinda Williams, a retired City of
Austin auditor who was an instrumental part of making Austin's animal welfare system
so successful. I would be happy to sit down with you and discuss this topic in more
depth in the future. In fact, I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to meet with you
in the future to discuss animal welfare issues here in Deschutes County. Thank you very
much for your time, and I hope we can work together to make Deschutes County a safer
place for the animals living here.
Sincerely, ~
Executive Director, Bend Spay and Neuter Project
mgwellinghoff@gmail.com
541-728-8085
Bend Spay Neuter Project
To reduce euthanasia rates communities must have in place progressive
placement programs for animals that entered the shelters and strong
prevention programs to reduce pet homelessness.
It is important to have both elements in place. Communities tend to
focus on placement first because everyone can see sad animals eyes
looking out of a cage. However, (in my humble opinion) it is impossible
to drastically reduce euthanasia through placement programs alone.
Progressive Placement Programs
• Partnerships with rescue groups. Responsible and well-run
rescue groups can assist shelters with placement of animals.
These groups take animals out of the shelter for adoption
purposes freeing up space for new animals coming into the
shelter. Additionally, these groups can take animals that need
medical care or other rehabilitation prior to adoption. This type
program gives shelters an opportunity to save animal lives that
would have been euthanized due to injury or illness. (Austin has a
program for reviewing and approving rescue groups.)
• Foster programs. Foster care can save lives by providing
temporary homes for animals that need time before they are
ready for adoption. Starting with underage animals is the fastest
way to get a program started (people love to take home babies so
it is easy to get fosters) and it will have a very immediate positive
impact on euthanasia rates. Mature foster programs can develop
programs for adult animals in need of training, recovery from
health issues, etc. For high volume foster programs you will need
a foster coordinator. The foster coordinator finds placement
(reviews and approves foster applicants) for animals in need of
foster care, coordinates any medical care required (vaccinations
at a minimum), and coordinates return to the shelter for adoption.
You can start a program with a volunteer foster coordinator.
• Open adoption practices. Many shelters have significant barriers
to pet adoptions. Open adoption practices assume that people
coming to the shelter are well meaning and intend to do
something good. So rather than putting barriers to adoption in
place, the focus is placed on pet matching to help people find the
pet that will be successful in the home and counseling services to
help adopters have the information that they will need to be
successful with their new pet. (The ASPCA has a good pet
matching program. Austin has a good program.) This change
alone can make a significant change to euthanasia rates.
Prevention Programs
Prevention of animals becoming homeless and entering the shelter is
the most effective way to reduce animal euthanasia in a community.
Even a small sterilization program focused on the right animals can
have a significant impact on animal intake numbers. It is possible for a
community to permanently reduce and then stabilize the animal intake
numbers if these three programs are in place:
• Affordable sterilization services. These services are typically
provided by a non-profit organization that uses private donations
to subsidize the cost of the surgical procedures so that services
can be provided at an affordable price. These services should be
targeted to at-risk (of becoming homeless) animals. Targeting to
this population of animals can be done through providing services
in at-risk neighborhoods, marketing through neighborhood
centers and clinics, etc. You don't have to spend a lot of money on
this type of targeting if you have a strong collaboration with the
local government and non-profit agencies that are serving low to
moderate income families.
• Free sterilization services. These services are typically provided
by local government. These services are critical in order to stop
the flow of animals coming into the shelter from families that
cannot afford to pay anything towards animal sterilization. Very
poor families will have animals and those animals will reproduce
unless services are available to these families. Mobile programs
are ideal because the services can be provided in the
neighborhoods where the animals are living (transportation is
often a barrier to accessing sterilization services.) However, there
are models where sterilization services are provided at a set
location and transportation of the animal is provided when
necessary. These services when targeted to neighborhoods with
the poorest families and highest rates of animal intake can have
very immediate impacts on both bite incidents and animal intake.
.,
If the program is very targeted, a small program can have
noticeable impacts. Local government should contract for these
services with a provider that has expertise in high volume/high Iquality sterilizations. (We don't want to take sterilization services Iaway from animals placed out of the shelter.)
• Free feral cat sterilizations. Every community has a feral cat
problem that is negatively affecting the community in numerous
ways. These cats will make significant contributions to shelter
intake (people find nests of kittens while the mother is out
hunting and take them to shelters), nuisance complaints to animal
control, bites, health concerns, etc. These only effective way to
control these populations is though aggressive sterilization
programs. I have seen these programs provided through a mix of
non-profits and local government. However, I make a strong case
for local governments to provide these programs because of the
public health risks associated with rabies in these unvaccinated
feral cats. Sterilizing them and vaccinating them for rabies will
provide a population of cats that is under control and has had at
least one vaccination. The way these programs typically work is
there is a cadre of volunteer trappers that trap the feral cat and
bring them in for sterilization. After sterilization, the trapper
returns that cat to its colony. Someone should be periodically
monitoring the colonies to ensure that there is not a new comer to
the colony in need of sterilization. This is usually trapper but
does not have to be. If funds are limited, focus on the females. I
implemented a pilot project that sterilized only 300 cats (high
percentage of females) and had an amazing impact on the kitten
intake that spring. Because you are using volunteers (and the
public) these programs are very cost effective.
Road Department
61150 SE 27th St. • 8end. Oregon 97702
[541 J 388-6581 • FAX [541 J 388-2719
September 16, 2012
To: Erik Kropp, County Administrator
Through: Chris Doty, Road Department Director
Tom Shamberger, Operations Manager
From: Dan Sherwin, Vegetation Manager
Subject: Title 2 Grant Funding For Weed/Vegetation Education Program
Erik,
I would like to apply for additional funding from the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self
Determination Act of 2000 which is considered by the Deschutes-Ochoco Resource Advisory
Committee. I have attached an outline of the grant proposal as well as the history of the weed
education grant. The total project proposal is $42,990.80. The amount requested from the RAC
will be $28,776 .00 and the in-kind from Deschutes County will be $12,776 .00. The grant will
provide funding from October 1, 2012 to December 31, 2014.
The first RAC weed/vegetation education grant was provide in 2010 for $28,500 and a second
grant in 2011 provided an additional $19,000. This grant would continue to provide funding for
the Deschutes County Weed/Vegetation Education Program.
Thank you for your consideration .
Sincerely, (\ t'I-.-_--CJ~~f/I-
Dan Sherwin
Quality Services Performed with Pride
Grant Narrative
• Background
Deschutes County has managed a very successful Education and Outreach program for
several years. The results of the outreach effort are evidenced for example by our annual
community wide weed pull. What started as a few people, 70 in 2003, targeting a specific
lot in their neighborhood has expanded to involve over a thousand volunteers in 4 cities
within Deschutes county and a number of other non-incorporated areas. We have
acquired and equipped a "Weed Education Trailer" that is present at many community
events throughout the tri-county area such as: Deschutes County Fair, the Oregon State
Fair, Crook County Farm Fair, Jefferson County Fair, Home and Garden Show, River
Fest, Let's Pull Together, Living On A Few Acres conference.
There are still many people to educate and motivate. Even with the current state of the
economy Deschutes County continues to grow. People are moving to Central Oregon
from everywhere in the United States and from around the world. These people need to
be educated about noxious weed and how they can manage their properties and the
environment. We don't want to lose the momentum we have developed through the
previous outreach programs.
• Scope of the Program
The primary objective of this proposal is to educate the public about the threats
associated with noxious weed and invasive plants, provide the tools necessary to identify
harmful vegetation, and increase individual and collective knowledge, capability, and
motivation that can be applied toward removal, control and prevention of the spread of
harmful plants to minimize ongoing ecological damage occurring along waterways,
upland drainage areas and restoration of native plants and ecological systems.
Weedivegetation education will be provided to the public by giving talks, lectures and
power point presentations. Brochures will be available as well as visual noxious weed
posters, films and other electronic media.
Example of past educational outreach deliverables:
Deschutes County Fair Weed Wagon Exhibit four days
attendance of 240,000.
Central Oregon Home and Garden Show 3 days with attendance of 12,000 people
Television, Good Morning Central Oregon 4 shows, 15,000 viewers.
Good Morning Central Oregon 4 interview viewed by 15,000 people
Oregon State Fair one day attendance
Neighborhood Association presentations and weed pulls attended by 600 people
SWCD meeting 8 and field workshops 4 with attendance 220 people
Agriculture, Schools and Natural Resource events 950 people
Lets Pull Together and War On Weeds event reach 2,000 to 3,000 people.
Weed Brochures distributed 3,000 to 4,000 per year.
Rural Living Hand Books with weed information has been distributed to 7,000
landowners.
• Partners
Education and outreach will be provided to all private and public landowners in the
Deschutes Basin and throughout Oregon. Deschutes County's vegetation program has
partnered with Crook, Jefferson, Jackson, Klamath and Marion Counties; US Forest
Service, Bureau of Land Management; Bonneville Power Administration; Oregon
Department of Agriculture; Oregon State Parks; US Fish and Wildlife; Oregon Fish and
Wildlife; Deschutes Soil and Water Conservation District; Oregon Department of
Transportation; Upper Deschutes Watershed Council; numerous homeowners
associations; elementary and high schools; and many nonprofit organizations. While it is
not possible to assign a monetary value to each of these partners they all contribute some
form of matching, in-kind, or cash funds.