Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-20-26 Work Session MinutesDUBLIN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION APRIL 20, 2026 Minutes Vice Mayor De Rosa called the Monday, April 20, 2026 work session to order at 6:03 p.m. Council members present: Ms. Alutto, Vice Mayor De Rosa, Ms. Johnson, Mr. Keeler, Ms. Kramb and Dr. Lam. Mayor Amorose Groomes was absent. Staff present: Ms. O'Callaghan, Mr. Barker, Deputy Chief Tabernik, Mr. Ament, Mr. Rubino and Mr. Batchelor. Others present: Kevin Kasnyik, Columbus and Franklin County Metro Parks; Gary Comer, Ohio Department of Natural Resources; and Greg Hitzhusen and Gabe Karns, The Ohio State University. Ms. Johnson led the Pledge of Allegiance. Deer Management Ms. Goliver began by providing comprehensive background on the deer management issue, explaining that discussions had been ongoing since February 2022. She outlined the chronological progression of actions taken, beginning with the adoption of Ordinance 47-23, the outdoor feed ordinance prohibiting feeding of wild animals on private property, which was adopted at the November 27, 2023 City Council meeting. Ms. Goliver detailed subsequent steps, including the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) presenting to the Community Services Advisory Committee (CSAC) at the November 25, 2024 meeting, followed by CSAC discussion at the February 11, 2025 meeting where they recommended that City staff continue monitoring the regional landscape surrounding deer management programs, particularly Worthington's newly adopted program at that time. Staff committed to providing CSAC with updates when new information became available, and City Council received this recommendation at its May 5, 2025 meeting. She continued explaining that staff provided a data and benchmarking update at the January 14, 2026 CSAC meeting, followed by a February 10 review of survey results and discussion with experts. CSAC then provided a comprehensive report to City Council at the March 9, 2026 meeting, bringing the discussion to the current evening. Ms. Goliver introduced the panel of experts present, noting they had been extremely involved through phone calls and emails to inform all conversations with CSAC and had graciously joined for the evening session. Kevin Kasnyik is the resource manager for Columbus and Franklin County Metro Parks, explaining he had been with Metro Parks for over 27 years and had been involved with their deer management program every year. He noted that he had served as a sharpshooter for about 12 years and had been in charge of their overall deer management program for the last 8 years, covering all aspects of deer management. Gary Comer is the Central Ohio or Wildlife District 1 Wildlife Management Supervisor. He explained that he had been with the Division of Wildlife since 2008 and previously worked with Ohio State Council Work Session April 20, 2026 Page 2 of 12 University on various natural resource programming and educational programs. He detailed his responsibilities for all permitting, research, and public land management activities in 13 central Ohio counties. Mr. Comer noted he serves on a task force in Worthington as well as a group called the Ohio Community Wildlife Cooperative, where he works with Barbara Ray to help municipal decision makers who are non-wildlife professionals make decisions around conflict and other wildlife-related issues in their communities. Greg Hitzhusen is an associate professor in the School of Environment and Natural Resources at The Ohio State University, specializing in religion, ecology, and sustainability, which he explained essentially equates to environmental ethics. He noted his membership on the Worthington Deer Task Force throughout their entire deer management decision-making process and his role as capstone instructor for the sustainability senior capstone course that conducted two surveys in Worthington. He introduced his colleague Gabe Karns, describing him as a landscape and wildlife ecologist who knows a great deal about deer habitat and deer behavior. Ms. Goliver began the substantive discussion by asking Mr. Comer to define biological and sociological carrying capacity. Mr. Comer explained that biological carrying capacity includes all physical elements including food, water, cover, and space required for healthy wildlife populations. When too many species occupy a landscape and cannot obtain adequate resources, the population experiences rapid reduction until it levels out. When biological capacity is exceeded, it overflows. Mr. Comer explained that social carrying capacity occurs when animals may not be approaching their biological carrying capacity, but residents and the community have reached their capacity for living together without conflict. He noted that in Central Ohio, they had been rapidly approaching social carrying capacity for a long time, with deer not being diseased, sick, or starving, but human residents having reached their tolerance limit. Mr. Karns addressed the challenge of establishing benchmark numbers for deer populations, explaining that the State oh Ohio does not manage white-tailed deer at very granular levels. He noted that while neighboring properties of 200 and 600 acres would not receive different management plans, the State sets bag limits at the county level, which represents their most detailed approach to deer management. Mr. Karns explained that when queried, states in their region typically reference 20 to 30 deer per square mile as healthy population levels, but emphasized that the reality depends on specific circumstances. He noted that suburban deer live in premium environments, being edge species by nature that are adaptable, generalists, and live exceptionally well around humans. Regarding healthy population levels, Mr. Karns explained that while Mr. Comer referenced deer nearing social carrying capacity, there was not tremendous evidence of deer nearing biological carrying capacity. If there were, observers would see females reducing fawn production and deer physically appearing to be starving during winter months as the rule rather than the exception. Since these indicators were not observed, the situation would likely worsen before improving. Mr. Karns described the concerning scenario where populations overshoot carrying capacity, explaining that the steep downward decline represents an undesirable situation. He noted that populations typically get worse before they get better, and the State manages counties by adjusting hunter regulations to remove sufficient deer to maintain balance. He emphasized that at the granular level of townships or municipalities, local governments operate below the level where the State applies its coarse filter to larger landscapes, creating a roundabout way of understanding benchmark establishment. Council Work Session April 20, 2026 Page 3 of 12 Ms. Goliver presented key information that Council had previously received, detailing Worthington's contract with USDA to remove 100 deer at a cost of $56,831.32, plus their contract with Ohio Penal Institute for Industries at $130 per deer. She reported that Dublin launched a survey on January 6 that remained open for approximately seven weeks, receiving 3,656 responses. Since the survey closed, they had received 10 additional contacts, with 9 supporting management. Ms. Goliver displayed a graph showing survey response distribution that Council had previously reviewed as part of the CSAC report. She outlined non-lethal options, beginning with the outdoor feeding prohibition adopted in 2023. She explained that relocation programs are currently illegal in Ohio, cause potentially lethal stress levels, can lead to disease spread, and would not receive state permits. Regarding birth control options including surgical sterilization and contraceptives, Ms. Goliver noted these are generally approved for research purposes, have limited effectiveness on open herds like Dublin's, do not reduce existing populations but only manage future population growth, and may extend doe lifespans. She detailed lethal options, starting with targeted removal involving City contracts with trained professionals who would work with Dublin Police Department to select removal sites. Operations would be conducted after dusk overnight, representing the quickest method to reduce populations. Deer could be picked up whole or field dressed and sent for processing, with processed venison donated to local food pantries, similar to Worthington's approach. Ms. Goliver explained that archery represents a lower direct cost option but requires high staff involvement through oversight and permitting by Dublin Police Department. While less effective at quickly reducing populations, it serves as a complementary tool to targeted removal programs. She presented pros and cons of lethal programs. Pros include direct and measurable population reduction, proven effectiveness in peer communities, ability to target specific city areas, and processed venison supporting local food pantries. Cons encompass potential negative public reaction, ethical concerns from residents, financial costs for contractors and oversight staffing support, and representing a long-term commitment requiring ongoing management for years, as learned from Worthington's experience. Ms. Goliver described the Police Department's use of thermal imaging drones for conducting a drone population index on February 24th. Zones were selected based on areas where staff received the most resident calls, where dead deer are most commonly collected, and where the City received reports of aggressive deer encounters. She emphasized this represented a snapshot in time showing deer present in those zones on that specific day, but provided a valuable tool for tracking program success. She introduced another potential tool, the Dark Horizon drone service, which recently conducted surveys in peer cities and worked with metro parks. Their aerial thermal drone operations could cover Dublin's 16,000-plus acres in an estimated four days at a cost of $24,508, providing a total population snapshot for that specific date and time. Ms. Goliver presented CSAC's goals for consideration: reducing aggressive deer encounters, reducing deer vehicle collisions or near collisions, limiting property and landscape damage, reducing resident complaints, reducing annual dead deer pickups, and reducing deer population as informed by an annual population index. Implementation considerations included beginning work with USDA through contract negotiations, defining measurable goals, and identifying locations. The process would require a City Council resolution authorizing an agreement and launching a comprehensive public information campaign. Council Work Session April 20, 2026 Page 4 of 12 Vice Mayor De Rosa opened the floor for general questions before addressing the specific questions presented to Council. Ms. Alutto asked about drone thermal imaging capabilities for heavily wooded areas, which Ms. Goliver confirmed the drones utilized thermal imaging technology. Mr. Keeler referenced Mr. Karns' explanation about biological limits and asked whether deer populations would self-correct if deer were starving to death, eliminating the need for action. Mr. Karns provided a detailed response explaining that while populations would self-correct, deer do not exist in a vacuum. He described deer as one of six to eight species in the eastern United States that function as ecosystem engineers. Using a road crew analogy, he explained that two people take time to complete a job, twenty people work faster, but two hundred people might finish overnight. Similarly, two deer on a landscape barely impact plants, twenty deer could be healthy, but two hundred deer would cause significant ecosystem damage before starving. Mr. Karns explained that deer functioning as ecosystem engineers means they take sensitive plants with them before dying, raise the cover profile in woods by consuming everything green within reach, creating visibility through previously dense foliage. Because of these impacts, wildlife managers typically prefer not to let white-tailed deer self-correct. He noted that while other species without ill effects on surrounding ecology might be allowed to self-correct, deer create problems requiring intervention. He described the cyclical nature of deer population management, explaining that after self- correction, reduced competition leads females back into reproductive overdrive, quickly returning to the same problematic cycle. Mr. Comer added that before reaching biological carrying capacity levels, human conflict escalates exponentially from current levels, including vehicle strikes and aggressive issues. He emphasized that the best time to start deer management was ten years ago. Ms. Alutto asked about deer as plant engineers and their impact on other wildlife. Mr. Karns confirmed negative impacts exist and explained that while much ecology remains hidden until proper studies reveal connections, he could highlight several examples. He noted that locally rare and sensitive plants represent the first casualties of overly high deer populations, as deer are selective browsers seeking the choicest morsels on landscapes. He referenced plants that previously existed at Sharon Woods Metro Park that were no longer present, though some recovery was possible given sufficient time after deer control implementation due to seed bank availability. Mr. Karns extended the discussion to human health implications, describing known trophic linkages connecting impacts on native vegetation to deer perpetuating invasive plant species problems. He specifically mentioned Japanese barberry and bush honeysuckle, noting these plants harbor heavier tick loads that carry Lyme disease and other human vector diseases, illustrating unexpected ecological connections. Ms. Alutto expressed concern about tick population impacts. Mr. Karns explained that any prey item dependent on cover would be affected, describing browse lines that appear as if professional landscape crews removed everything green within six feet of the ground. Ground-dependent species requiring green foliage for predator shelter would face significant problems. He referenced local Columbus landscapes showing extreme conditions where observers could see completely through woodlots that should naturally provide dense cover. Mr. Karns noted that songbirds represent another affected group, emphasizing that few species can trigger such cascading effects, with white-tailed deer in the east being a primary example. Council Work Session April 20, 2026 Page 5 of 12 Dr. Lam thanked all participants for their work and stated his position from the previous council meeting. He noted that Ward 3 had the highest survey responses favoring culling and described a recent HOA meeting in River Forest, which had the highest deer concentrations. He observed a deer crossing after the meeting and learned from a homeowner who reported seeing about 20 deer daily in her backyard. Dr. Lam noted that the 2026 survey materially changed compared to the initial 2023 survey, particularly regarding increased aggressive encounters including pets being affected and deer following people. He asked about estimating unreported incidents, noting that medicine has methods for such estimates, and wondered whether deer-related unreported incidents had increased over the previous three years. Mr. Karns identified two relevant factors: complaint fatigue, where residents stop filing complaints after perceiving no action, and nonresponse bias in surveys. He explained how peer-reviewed publications often require follow-up surveys to check for nonresponse bias through direct contact with non-respondents to verify that their responses align with survey respondents, preventing bias. Mr. Karns noted that with Dublin's high sample size of over 3,000 respondents, statistical power was impressive. He explained that typically 400 to 500 respondents provide sufficient data, with additional responses not significantly increasing information value. He suggested that unless a totally unreported area of Dublin could be identified through mail distribution patterns, the survey likely provided a good population snapshot. Mr. Hitzhusen added insights from Worthington's experience regarding deer vehicle strikes. They compared police reports of deer strike calls to survey responses and found higher proportions of survey respondents reporting deer vehicle accidents than police counts reflected. This indicated police counts were underrepresented because insurance companies do not require police reports for deer strikes, meaning many incidents go unreported to police while appearing in survey responses. Mr. Karns emphasized focusing on trends rather than absolute numbers, noting that complaint numbers, deer vehicle collisions, and deer population counts are important but trends matter more. He stressed that seeing trends move in desired directions represents good evidence and data, while holding up single numbers as truth creates unrealistic expectations. Dr. Lam asked Mr. Hitzhusen about ethical arguments for proceeding when not at biological carrying capacity but at sociological carrying capacity, requesting a strong ethical framework for resident communication given that one-third of survey respondents opposed culling with a sizable neutral block. Mr. Hitzhusen provided extensive ethical analysis, first challenging the premise that biological carrying capacity should be the management standard. He explained that statewide deer management does not target biological carrying capacity but rather social carrying capacity, which was a new fact for him when involved with Worthington. He noted that management decisions are based on complaint numbers rather than some perfect deer population number, focusing on reducing conflict trends rather than honoring ecological balance. Mr. Hitzhusen described reading through approximately 2,000 survey comments from Worthington's first survey and discovering significant confusion among residents. Many opposition comments reflected misunderstandings about alternatives, with people suggesting illegal or ineffective options like relocation or sterilization. This led to conducting public education before their second survey. Council Work Session April 20, 2026 Page 6 of 12 He emphasized the importance of public education phases in addressing the percentage of people concerned about deer removal, noting that significant portions of opposition stem from misunderstanding available options. He cited common misconceptions like believing deer were present first and humans had no right to remove them, when natural forest deer density is approximately 4 deer per square kilometer compared to suburban density in the forties. Suburban areas provide smorgasbords for deer with luscious gardens and landscaping, creating optimal multiplication conditions rather than disadvantaging deer. Mr. Hitzhusen explained that humans have removed deer predators and continuously replace food sources, making suburban environments bonanzas for deer populations. He noted that Worthington's second survey showed significantly decreased opposition and increased support after education efforts, suggesting Dublin's survey results resembled Worthington's first survey with similar misconception levels. He addressed the ethical challenge perspective, noting that approximately 20 percent of any community will oppose deer removal regardless of circumstances, representing a baseline expectation. He emphasized that opposition voices raise important cautions about ensuring deer are respected and removed as humanely as possible, representing crucial ethical considerations that must remain part of any equation. Mr. Hitzhusen expressed disappointment that citizens never presented strong moral cases during Worthington Deer Task Force meetings, with most complaints focusing on deer attacks, garden damage, community garden destruction, and tree damage rather than nuanced ethical discussions he had anticipated. Ms. Johnson asked about targeted removal ethics, referencing Worthington's report showing 64 to 67 percent of removed deer were female, mostly 2.5 years old and older, and whether fawns are taken simultaneously during targeted removal. Mr. Comer explained that at targeted removal timing, most people envision nursing spotted fawns when considering young deer, but six-month-old deer are biologically still fawns while appearing like smaller adults. He noted that targeting female population members is strategic because they are baby makers, with one male serving many does. Reducing only male populations would result in tired bucks but continued reproduction. Mr. Comer described statewide agency struggles with declining hunter populations and declining venison use. Most hunters are trophy hunters wanting mature males, and statistics show that 85 percent of hunters taking bucks as their first harvest will not take another deer that season. National trends show average male deer harvest age increasing from 1.5 years in 2000 to 3.5 years currently, creating challenges for agencies trying to increase female harvest. He explained that urban deer populations count heavily in herd estimates, but these estimates are based on harvest data. Since urban populations are not hunted, agencies lack harvest data for management decisions. They manage based on public opinion surveys of landowners and hunters, aiming for balanced satisfaction where half of each group considers deer numbers appropriate. Mr. Karns addressed the 67 percent female removal rate, explaining that at fawn drop, deer are roughly 50-50 male to female, but males are reckless. Natural adult sex ratios typically become 2 to 2.5 females per male, meaning the 67 percent female rate indicated sharpshooters had zero selectivity, taking the first animal presenting an ethical, clean, safe, quick kill opportunity. This percentage aligned exactly with expectations from unharvested populations. Mr. Comer added that his training originally taught that removing 60 percent of female populations maintains steady numbers, but this may now require 85 to 90 percent removal for population Council Work Session April 20, 2026 Page 7 of 12 reduction. He provided an example where removing 60 deer from 100 would typically result in 100 deer again the following year. Ms. Johnson clarified she had no problem with the ratios but wanted to understand community education messaging. Mr. Hitzhusen explained that hunting seasons are set in fall when fawns are older and capable of independent survival if mothers are harvested, with targeted removal occurring even later when fawns are more independent. Ms. Alutto asked Mr. Kasnyik about metro park deer management experiences and lessons learned. Mr. Kasnyik explained their program started in the late 1980s with experience attempting relocation and birth control before realizing targeted removal was the best option for quickly reducing numbers while maintaining ethical and safe standards for deer and staff. Their management program includes other options like archery hunting and controlled deer hunting in certain parks across their 23 parks in 7 counties. Mr. Kasnyik emphasized that they do not conduct deer management in all parks but monitor situations closely. He highlighted biological diversity impacts, referencing Sharon Woods in Westerville where they first recognized huge problems in the early 1990s. They lost over 350 plant species when their metaphorical bucket was ready to tip over. Metro Parks conducts extensive biotic surveys with substantial data on vegetation, insects, and birds, all directly impacted in short periods without targeted removal. Mr. Kasnyik noted their difference from municipalities in having commissioned officers, including himself, though he no longer shoots after 12 years as a sharpshooter. They use their own staff for every program element, benefiting from their 30-year program history. Ms. Alutto asked about factors making some deer more aggressive than others. Mr. Comer identified timing as crucial, explaining that evolutionary protection instincts cause does with fawns to perceive small dogs as potential timber wolves. Pet owners protecting their animals create confrontational situations where humans often lose. He noted the difficulty of rationally advising people to drop leashes and run because they do not want to watch their dogs get harmed. Mr. Comer described other aggression timing factors including habituated behavior misinterpreted as aggression from hand-feeding, where deer perceive humans as snack providers. During breeding season, hormone levels and testosterone in competing males can cause humans to become collateral damage when caught between fighting bucks. Young, frisky yearling and 2.5- year-old males who have not mastered breeding behavior pose additional risks, similar to young bulls in cattle or adolescent male turkeys displaying territorial behavior. Ms. Goliver added that aggressive behavior can be learned, with fawns born to aggressive mothers learning to attack dogs and humans. This creates patterns in specific areas where aggressive does have taught herd animals to be aggressive, resulting in year-after-year aggressive issues at identifiable addresses. Mr. Comer confirmed this observation, noting that when responding to aggressive incidents as an agency, neighbors emerge reporting unreported incidents involving the same problem deer. He described situations where nearly every neighbor in cul-de-sacs had experienced problems with the same aggressive deer. He explained maternal territories where grandmothers, mothers, aunts, and nieces form maternal groups that split for fawn dropping but return to work together, meaning entire maternal groups learn aggressive behaviors. Council Work Session April 20, 2026 Page 8 of 12 Ms. Alutto expressed fascination with docile deer in her area, describing an incident where her dog charged a deer that simply stood and moved outside the electric fence boundary, demonstrating the deer's knowledge of fence limitations. Mr. Hitzhusen confirmed similar observations of deer understanding traffic patterns and using crosswalks in Worthington. Ms. Alutto asked about processing deer parts beyond meat donation. Mr. Comer explained standard byproduct handling similar to livestock. Ground meat is used for donation due to its versatility as a substitute for beef, turkey, or ground chicken. Mr. Comer noted that processing represents the largest or close to largest expense in deer removal programs, though hunter involvement can offset costs since deer become hunter property and responsibility. He emphasized that food facilities consistently accept venison donations, as red meat cannot be sourced quickly enough nationally. Ms. Goliver confirmed that Worthington composted entrails, aligning with sustainability goals. Mr. Hitzhusen added that Worthington's resource pantry initially accepted limited venison amounts but requested all available venison after discovering community enthusiasm. Regarding antlers, Mr. Comer explained his office distributes them to Columbus Zoo and nature centers for animal enrichment. Permit standards require antler disposal rather than trophy keeping. Most targeted removal programs surrender antlers to agencies immediately on-site to prevent accusations of removing trophy deer for personal use or wall mounting. Ms. Kramb asked about Glacier Ridge Metro Park analysis and sharpshooting activities. Mr. Kasnyik confirmed active annual operations starting in 2022 after hearing complaint reports from Mr. Comer, observing deer vehicle collisions with Route 33, noting growing development, and experiencing increased deer conflicts within the park as public facilities developed. Mr. Kasnyik provided removal statistics: 54 deer removed in 2022, 43 in 2023 when trends appeared positive, then 66 in 2024 after tremendous development increases between 2023 and 2024. Large woodlots were completely cleared adjacent to Glacier Ridge, causing displaced deer to move into the park and increasing problems. They established exclosure fencing in multiple places with Mr. Karns conducting Ohio State University research, clearly demonstrating differences in areas where deer were excluded from grazing. In 2025, they removed only 19 deer, which-Mr. Kasnyik attributed to previous year development impacts and different winter weather patterns. He predicted 20 to 40 removals for the following year, noting the difficulty of predicting changes at that location. Ms. Johnson asked whether Glacier Ridge removal was based on baseline population data and whether Dublin needed full 25-square-mile drone surveys. Mr. Kasnyik explained that data snapshots change quickly and dramatically due to weather and development, with numbers over long periods providing better understanding. He described how clearing 50 acres of prime whitetail habitat adjacent to the park made previous efforts seem ineffective overnight. Mr. Kasnyik noted environmental impacts on deer survival, including drought affecting fawn survival and hard winter conditions with snow affecting population distribution. He explained that warm-season grasses and prairie grasses at Glacier Ridge lose nutritional value in winter, causing deer to move into neighborhoods where targeted removal operations could not access them. Mr. Comer expressed the importance of baseline surveys from a permitting standpoint, explaining that management plans requiring baseline establishment are absolutely required for targeted removal permits. Baselines serve as defense mechanisms, even when absolute numbers cannot be Council Work Session April 20, 2026 Page 9 of 12 determined, by establishing deer presence. He cited Worthington examples where some residents claimed seeing only one or two deer, making data essential for factual responses. Mr. Comer noted that management plan proposals can be based on various factors without secret formulas. Metro Parks staff have developed art-and-science approaches to recognizing when parks approach maintenance levels where negative impacts become noticeable. He distinguished between ecosystem management at metro parks versus urban area management, where over- harvesting would have greater conflict reduction impact and longer-lasting effects before populations fill back in. He described cost variability and annual reporting requirements where agencies must submit proposals explaining removal numbers and justifications. Metro Parks operates on autopilot due to experience, while Worthington began conservatively to prove safe and successful program implementation to their community. Mr. Comer acknowledged that budget constraints significantly influenced Worthington's initial numbers, with costs including USDA Wildlife Services contracting and Ohio Penal Institute processing. While successful from implementation standpoints, biological impacts were minimal, with community complaints continuing at similar rates and residents questioning program effectiveness. He noted placebo effects where legitimate management attempts generate resident appreciation for effort, similar to rotating street maintenance creating community perception of comprehensive attention rather than complaints about neglected areas. Dr. Lam asked follow-up questions about Worthington's 10-year management approach and target determination methods. Mr. Hitzhusen clarified that the program represents ongoing management rather than 10-year limitation, continuing until deer numbers are controlled for whatever reason. He explained that Worthington police coincidentally purchased infrared drones prior to task force initiation, enabling regular deer surveys using police equipment. Mr. Comer noted pros and cons of Worthington's survey design based on plow routes, acknowledging repeatability benefits but questioning biological ideal. He explained that fixed- altitude street-center flights miss deer hiding behind houses, bushes, and ravines, though consistent methodologies allow stability assessment over time. He recommended comprehensive community surveys to identify targeted management areas, noting that riparian corridors might concentrate entire populations in single square miles affecting specific neighborhoods, enabling focused management versus citywide approaches. Vice Mayor De Rosa noted unanimous agreement on drone surveys while mentioning leaf timeline constraints, asking about expediting data collection processes. Ms. O'Callaghan suggested using contingencies for time efficiency and expressed comfort proceeding based on Council feedback, noting the professional services contract approach would not require specific resolutions while gauging interest in unbudgeted items. Council members provided individual responses to the four questions presented. Mr. Keeler supported moving forward based on 59 percent survey support for deer population management, indicating social issues requiring action. He emphasized that waiting for deer starvation would be irresponsible, noting that deer represent the most lethal animals to human populations despite two documented US coyote fatalities. He highlighted protecting native species as an environmental benefit and supporting food pantries through venison donation while maintaining healthy deer populations. Council Work Session April 20, 2026 Page 10 of 12 Mr. Keeler answered yes to proceeding with lethal management programs while noting that specific details like ethics statements, communications plans, and deer numbers would emerge from program development. He calculated that Worthington's size being five times Dublin's geographic area suggested Dublin could theoretically remove 500 deer, though he recommended starting with 100-200 and noted Mr. Comer's urban area recommendation for higher rather than lower removal numbers. He supported beginning this winter if feasible and likely supporting ongoing population monitoring subject to budget considerations. Ms. O'Callaghan clarified that Worthington's costs excluding overtime totaled approximately $100,000 rather than the $56,000 figure initially presented. Dr. Lam supported lethal management programs and CSAC goals, noting aggressive attack increases from 4 in previous years to 20 in the most recent year. He supported Dark Horizon baseline surveys while deferring timing feasibility to experts and emphasized hotspot targeting importance for informed decision-making. He indicated readiness to proceed without additional questions regarding the basic decision, though noting specific implementation questions about public-private areas and setback requirements for future discussion. Ms. Goliver clarified timing considerations for Dark Horizon surveys, explaining the need to complete surveys before full leaf coverage with approximately one to two weeks available for baseline data collection before the upcoming winter implementation window. Ms. Kramb indicated she was not ready to proceed, preferring to address additional questions before rushing forward. Her primary concern focused on whether drone surveys covered the entire city or only selected concentration areas. Ms. Goliver explained that the limited drone survey represented spot checks of locations selected based on dead deer pickups and resident complaints rather than comprehensive coverage. Ms. Kramb questioned whether deer concentrations in areas suitable for sharpshooting made the program relevant, noting that if deer were only accessible on periphery areas like Glacier Ridge, the program might be ineffective for addressing central city problems. She emphasized that if sharpshooting could only reach edge deer rather than problematic central areas, the program would not solve the identified issues. She supported public education meetings about deer behavior as immediate actionable items and noted observing coyote predation on deer in her area, wondering about behavioral impacts on deer skittishness and aggression. Ms. Kramb suggested improved signage for deer crossings and high deer concentration areas, referencing educational signs in Emerald Fields about coyote encounters. Ms, Kramb expressed concern about slippery slope implications of managing deer potentially leading to expectations for managing other damaging animals like skunks. She emphasized the need to answer questions about lethal program effectiveness and costs before proceeding, estimating $700 per deer based on Worthington's experience and projecting significant expenses for Dublin's potentially higher needs. Ms. Johnson shifted question order to start with supporting drone surveys within the specified timeframe to answer targeting questions and provide hotspot data. She expressed initial skepticism about necessity but found the evening educational and eye-opening regarding ecosystem impacts and deer welfare. Ms. Johnson supported CSAC goals, winter initiation if feasible pending outstanding question resolution, and had no additional questions at that time. Ms. Kramb added emphasis on surveying woodlot vegetation conditions to assess deer impacts on plant communities. She noted observing browse lines during daily walks but seeing recovering Council Work Session April 20, 2026 Page 11 of 12 vegetation and suggested ecological surveys would help determine program support based on woodlot condition assessments. Ms. Karns cautioned against woodlot condition assessments without proper controls, explaining that problems become invisible when missing species are eliminated systemically everywhere. He noted that expert assessments would likely appear fine without exclosure controls and sufficient recovery time for native seed bank germination, given humans' limited memory and perspective on long-term changes. He acknowledged that negative impacts likely increased over the previous 5 to 10 years while noting his survey tabulation of 94 deer over 10 spot counts, reinforcing the importance of comprehensive drone surveys for future decision-making. Ms. Alutto expressed appreciation for the educational session and complete support for drone surveys as appropriate first steps for confident decision-making. She supported CSAC goals as good community representation and moved from initial skepticism to supporting lethal management programs based on resident protection needs, ecosystem impacts on plant and animal species, and ethical considerations framework. Ms. Alutto noted eye-opening statistics about historical deer populations and appreciated the ethical discussion approach. While uncertain about winter timing pending drone study data and additional conversations, she supported general program direction for better protection. She acknowledged concerns about managing additional animal species but noted that deer differ from animals like skunks where private exterminators provide individual property solutions. Vice Mayor De Rosa expressed unanimous drone survey support with leaf timeline urgency, supporting the program despite personal emotional connections to backyard deer. She noted that missing the 10-year-ago optimal timing made current action responsible and necessary. Regarding CSAC goals, Vice Mayor De Rosa suggested elevating them to broader categories including safety, environmental, and ethical goals with specific items as subcategories to improve communication effectiveness. She supported winter implementation if properly executed and requested additional information from experts and communication guidance based on Worthington's lessons learned. Mr. Hitzhusen provided additional clarification about Dublin's higher aggressive deer complaint numbers compared to Worthington, noting Dublin's 30-40-50 aggressive deer complaints represented significantly more than Worthington experienced. He suggested this issue particularly needed management in Dublin due to learned aggressive behavior being taught to offspring, creating multiple generations of problematic deer. Ms. Johnson corrected previous information about Worthington private landowner participation, clarifying that approximately 100 homeowners volunteered participation with about 50 percent ultimately utilized during operations, demonstrating substantial community support for the effort. The session concluded with expressions of appreciation from Council members after thanking all participants for their time and expertise in addressing the complex deer management issue facing Dublin. There being no further business for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 8:01 p.m. Council Work Session April 20, 2026 I \ | WU Presiding Officer — Vice Mayor Clerk of Coypcil