08/25/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In response to Councilwoman Shirey, Mr. Martin said that the $10 fee of the private contractor would cover a complete dog control program as distinguished from a full animal control program. If that was to be considered, other costs would be involved. e He said the only kinds of staff costs not included would be the type of higher manage- ment time that might be involved. He added that if contracting a private concern was to be pursued rather than the staff proposal, basic policy questions were involved and some very specific items would have to be resolved - whether to operate a pound, the type of licensing program, spaying and vaccination programs, etc. He said a specific proposal could be brought back but not unless the agencies were seriously interested in pursuing that course. In response to Councilman Keller, Mr. Martin said the private concern's program would also give consideration to a reduced fee for spayed or neutered animals. There would also be a reduction in fines for spayed or neutered animals on the first viola- tion. He said the private concern would require payment of court fines to them, 5% of which could be retained by the agencies to cover costs of processing violations. Councilman Bradley wondered whether the Lane Humane Society had decided not to act as poundmaster because of budgetary reasons or because of philosophical questions. If it was because of budgetary reasons, he asked what action would be required by these jurisdictions to have the Society assume that role. Mr. Martin answered that the present services provided by Lane Humane Society cost about $95,000. This proposal suggests about $118,000 which includes a veterinarian program. So it is considered a philosophical question rather than budget. Ned Briner, Lane County, said the issue is one of confusing the Lane Humane Society's functions with those of a public agency. . Commissioner Wood wondered if consideration had been given to some plan allowing pay- ment for spaying or neutering services over a period of time. He thought some people might be reluctant to have those services because of the veterinarian costs. Mr.Martin said that involved co-operation of veterinarians and to this point they had been e hesi tant, there was much work yet to be done in that area. Councilman Bradley repeated his question about the use of a serial levy. Mr. Martin said the basic question was the political issue, whether property taxes should be used to pay for dog control. Mayor Anderson suggested addressing at this time the basic questions involved, with the assumption that no private agency was available. If consensus is achieved, then the question of public vs private agency could be pursued. Discussion was requested on the basic questions: 1. Should construction of a tri-agency pound be authorized? . Councilman Keller wondered about cutting out consideration of contracting with a private concern. Mayor Anderson thought that could be brought in later after consensus was reached on the basic concept. Mr. Martin said that the private agency would not contract the services unless all three agencies agreed to a uniform approach, so staff was comfortable wi th proceeding on the basis suggested. There were no objections to the construction of a tri-agency animal pound. 2. Should a single agency perform the enforcement function for all three agencies? Councilmen Keller and Meyer asked whether the single agency was to be private or public. Mr. Martin said that staff recommended that one of the three agencies should perform the enforcement function for all three agencies, which e one was not yet settled. Administrative policy would be shared at the staff level, broad policy decisions would be shared between the two councils and the commissioners. 8/25/75 - 16 4-'0'0