City of Eugene
7/23/2007 10:14:32 PM
11/2/2006 5:14:16 PM
City Council Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
<br /> ~ <br /> e M I NUT E S <br /> EUGENE CITY COUNCIL <br /> November 12, 1975 <br /> Adjourned meeting - from November 10, 1975 - of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, <br /> Oregon was called to order by His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 12:00 noon on <br /> November 12, 1975 in the McNutt Room with the following Council members present: <br /> Neil Murray, Wickes Beal, Tom Williams, Ray Bradley, D. W. Hamel, Eric Haws, and Edna <br /> Shirey. Councilman Gus Keller was absent. <br /> I - Code Amendment re: Dog Control <br /> Carried over for Council deliberation on questions raised at November 10, 1975 meeting. <br /> Assistant Manager Keith Martin explained modifications in the new draft - consistent <br /> with Springfield's ordinance - with regard to handling of violations. He said dis- <br /> cussion is still taking place on whether to direct violations to a hearings officer <br /> or to a small claims court. In the meantime, municipal court has the responsibility. <br /> Mr. Martin referred to questions raised at the November 10 meeting, one being that of <br /> full animal control. He said the proposed ordinance was concerned with dog control <br /> only. Costs resulting from injured livestock, etc., were not intended to be borne <br /> by dog license fees. Rather, this program is an attempt to create the machinery <br /> for effective dog control through a uniform program. With regard to the question. ' <br /> of services from Lane Humane Society, Mr. Martin said it is intended to explore <br /> with the Society after broad policy issues are settled whether some of the services <br /> can be provided through that agency. <br /> e Discussion turned to specific sections of the ordinance with Councilman Bradley <br /> objecting to the wording "no person shall own" as it refers to barking dogs. Stan <br /> Long, assistant city attorney, explained that that language was used to avoid a prob- <br /> lem of rejecting ownership. A dog owner as defined in the code is more than the <br /> usual concept of an owner; it could mean harboring a dog, a dog not under control, etc. <br /> Fees were discussed, Mr. Martin explaing that Springfield was proposing a lower fee <br /> for licensing dogs owned by elderly persons. He said Eugene staff favored a lower <br /> license fee through the spaying and neutering program rather than in the fee struc- <br /> ture itself, thereby attempting to reduce the dog population while giving the <br /> opportunity for the $4.75 fee. Mrs. Beal thought there would be a lesser problem <br /> with dogs owned by elderly people since there was the tendency to keep the pets more <br /> closely confined. But Mr. Murray answered that the $9.50 fee would discourage licens- <br /> ing dogs at all and result in less revenues for the program. Mrs. Shirey thought the <br /> $9.50 fee too high, that the program should be subsidized through general funds be- <br /> cause of its benefit to the general public. Mr. Martin emphasized that the program <br /> would have to be administered through an aggressive door-to-door licensing program. <br /> If that commitment wasn't made, raising the fee to $9.50 would be counterproductive. <br /> Dave Jordan, member of the task force, said the idea was to set the licensing fee <br /> high enough to foce people to have their pets spayed or neutered to be eligible for <br /> a lower fee. Mr. Haws commented that it appeared then to be a case of raising the <br /> license fee or raising the fines, if the program was to be self-sustaining. <br /> Councilman Bradley wondered if raising the fee to $9.50 would mean that no general <br /> funds at all would be used. He thought a ceiling should be set at $9.50 so that if <br /> the program was not self-sustaining at that point, general revenues could be used. <br /> e Mr. Martin answered that both Springfield and Lane County made a policy judgment that <br /> the dog control program would not draw from general revenues. He said the possibility <br /> of a deficit, especially during the first year of operation, was discussed, but if <br /> the aggressive licensing program was kept up, it was reasonable to expect the program <br /> 11/12/75 - 1 <br /> ~o7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.