Windcrest advisory committee refines draft foster policy, flags contract and quarantine inconsistencies

The Windcrest Animal Services Advisory Committee spent the bulk of its Oct. 28 meeting reviewing a draft animal fostering policy and a five‑page foster-care application, identifying formatting errors, inconsistent quarantine language, and potential conflicts with the city's existing kennel contract and RFP.

Committee members pointed out typographical and numbering issues in the draft and asked staff to reconcile discrepancies before formal adoption. Members flagged inconsistent quarantine language across the packet — one place stated 10 days, another 14 days or '2 weeks' — and recommended standardizing the form to a 10‑day minimum unless a veterinarian specifies a longer period for contagious disease.

The committee also recommended operational and administrative changes to the application: adding an emergency contact (in addition to the foster's contact and veterinary information), adding landlord contact information for renters, and including a question about ownership versus rental status. Members discussed requiring a fence description and a photo for certain foster placements to verify adequate containment for larger or jumper breeds.

Several members asked for a clear definition of 'foster' and cautioned that the proposed policy must not conflict with the city's contract or the original RFP for the contracted kennel. Staff noted the RFP/contract provides that bidders with established foster/adoption processes receive additional consideration and offered to circulate the RFP and contract so the committee can confirm whether any drafted language would conflict with contractual terms.

On oversight and process, the committee recommended pre‑placement home checks (conducted before an animal is placed, rather than immediately on application), clarified that fostered animals must be logged in internal databases (but recommended that internal tracking be handled in ACO standard operating procedures rather than in the public policy), and suggested relocating an administrative timeline (applications reviewed within three business days by the director) to a more appropriate administrative section of the document.

Members debated notice and removal procedures. The draft included language that 'the department is free at any time with or without notice or cause to end the foster relationship.' Committee members expressed concern about the lack of notice for retrievals; staff defended the 'with or without cause' phrasing as a conservative legal approach but agreed the committee could set a notice expectation. The group proposed a 24‑hour notice for routine retrievals, with an exception allowing faster action when required by law or in true emergencies (for example, a bat bite or other public‑health hazard).

Committee members requested clearer vaccination wording (use applicable vaccinations by species, e.g., rabies and DHPP for dogs, FVRCP for cats), consolidation of medical questions to improve clarity, and explicit cross‑references to Chapter 6 of the Windcrest Code of Ordinances for intake, outcome, and appeals procedures. The draft's appeals language allows applicants to appeal denials in writing to the director but lacks a response timeline; members suggested adding a timeline or pointing applicants to the Chapter 6 appeals procedures.

Staff said they will correct typographical/numbering issues, reconcile language with the RFP/contract and Chapter 6, and return a revised draft. Staff estimated roughly a week and a half to complete updates and will resubmit the cleaned policy and application packet to city staff for placement on a future agenda. No formal votes were taken on the policy at this meeting.

The meeting also covered routine scheduling and upcoming adoption events; the committee adjourned at 6:28 p.m.