08/11/1992 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Mr. Gleason said that administering shots was revenue-positive for the City. Mr. Mounts observed that Council Resolution 3456 establishing the clinic specifically referenced the need to control infectious diseases in the animal population. Ms. Ehrman indicated her interest in a surcharge for service on nonresidents. Ms. Bascom said she favored reduction of General Fund support for the clinic but not at the level proposed by Mr. Rutan. She said that the public outcry over the proposal to eliminate the clinic should be respected and argued for innovative approaches to clinic funding. Mr. Robinette said he was disappointed that staff was unable to provide specific figures regarding nonresident use of the clinic. He suggested that the council set a target for the clinic's General Fund support and refer the target to staff and the clinic's constituency. Mr. Nicholson questioned how elimination of General Fund support would benefit the clinic, and suggested a more flexible approach, such as reducing support conditional upon funding by the other jurisdictions. Mr. Boles said that he believed elimination of the clinic was "penny-wise and pound-foolish" due to the impact of the elimination on field enforcement and public safety. He asked if the clinic was constrained from raising its fees by the resolution. Mr. Mounts said fee increases must be approved by the council. Mr. Boles suggested that the motion be reworded to include council e encouragement for the clinic to raise its fees to supplant General Fund support. Mr. MacDonald suggested that reduction of field enforcement meant increased need to prevent unwanted animals. He suggested that, rather than eliminate General Fund support, the council consider raising fees, establish a nonresi- dential fee differential, and examine ways to increase operational efficiency at the clinic. Ms. Ehrman suggested that the sustainability of the clinic was an important issue. She said if clinic fees reach the same level as private sector fees, it would be difficult to justify clinic operation. Mr. Mounts suggested that the council set a cost-recovery target for the clinic that could be evaluated on an annual basis to determine if the target can be met. The motion failed, 5:3. Mr. Rutan moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, to establish a cost- recovery target for the Spay-Neuter Clinic of reducing General Fund support by a minimum 50 percent ($25,000) over a period of three years. The motion passed unanimously. e MINUTES--City Council Work Session August 11, 1992 Page 3 5:30 p.m.