Brandy, a representative of the South Utah Valley Animal Shelter, told the Woodland Hills City Council at a work session on Oct. 28 that the shelter supports TNVR in appropriate locations but opposes a blanket policy that would automatically fix and return all adult cats brought into the shelter without a collar or microchip. “My name is Brandy, and I'm from the South Utah Valley Animal Shelter,” she said as she introduced the shelter's intake data and operational concerns.

The shelter presented intake figures for Woodland Hills: 20 cats in 2024 (10 adopted, 6 euthanized, 2 reclaimed by owners; 3 identified as feral) and 8 so far in 2025 (5 adopted, 1 owner release, 3 feral). The presenter said most animals came in after being trapped and brought by residents and that a substantial share of adopted animals were kittens, which TNVR programs can reduce when applied at high coverage rates.

Why it matters: The shelter said an SNVR approach that assumed any uncollared, unchipped adult cat was a community (feral) cat and automatically sterilized and returned it risked altering privately owned pets and could increase community frustration if owners lost animals. Brandy noted Utah law requires a five-business-day stray-hold for impounded animals, a procedural protection that would be bypassed if all animals were immediately returned without shelter involvement.

Operational context and constraints: The shelter emphasized that Utah County Sheriff's Department provides animal-control responses for Woodland Hills and would not transport cats to private TNVR sites; transport and TNVR logistics would fall to city staff and volunteers. The shelter also said a previous arrangement with a spay/neuter partner ended in July, reducing the shelter's capacity to schedule on-demand spay/neuter appointments for animals brought in by residents.

Regional example and budget effects: The shelter described an example in nearby Santaquin where limited intake options and poorly managed TNVR corresponded with a larger uncontrolled cat population and, reportedly, "dumping" of animals across municipal borders. The shelter also noted municipal budgets are affected by intake counts, since shelter funding and allocations are partly tied to the number of animals received.

Public comments and volunteer work: Several volunteers and residents described local TNVR efforts and reported positive adoption outcomes for previously unmanaged cats. Shelter staff recommended a hybrid approach that allows TNVR where the location is appropriate and safe, while retaining residents' option to bring nuisance or stray animals to the shelter for intake, medical care and—when feasible—adoption.

What was not decided: Council took no formal action on ordinances or regulations regulating TNVR or SNVR at this meeting. The shelter asked council to consider policies that preserve shelter intake as an option and to factor in liability, stray-hold requirements and the limited municipal and shelter medical budgets when considering any ordinance change.

Ending note: The shelter said it is willing to work with the city on education and community-based strategies but asked that residents retain the choice to deliver nuisance or possibly owned animals to the shelter rather than removing that option by local ordinance.