11/10/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Keller wondered why so few licenses are being purchased in Eugene. Asst. Manager advised there are license purchase proble~s in all three Jurisdictions. Written notices have previously been relied on, though a - solicitation program was attempted this summer using county records. It only met with partial success. To have a successful program would require a door-to-door campaign, involving a high cost and low return. In answer to Mr. Keller's question regarding ,what seemed to be an incredibly high annual expense figure, Assistant Manager explained one factor was that some positions of people working in dog control were upgraded hopefully to provide staff who had sensitivity to the people problems involved and could deal lTOre effectively witl) the concerns of dog control enforcement. Mr. Murray had a question regarding the citizens committee that had earlier dealt with the dog control problem. He wondered if there was any connection between that committee and the current task force. Mr. Bradley explained that in July of 1974 the County COmnUssioners appointed a commdttee to present recommendations that would provide for a well-run program. That committee's recommendations were considered by the staffs of the thre~ jurisdictions and several suggestions made. The task force was charged with making recommendations on how to implement the suggestions resulting from those meetings. Mayor Anderson commented that much discussion has been held and thought given to dog control. There have been some tragic mistakes made along the way, he feels, and some very bad inefficiencies. The purpose now is to set higher sights, adopt in principle the task force recommendations, and proceed to hold a public hearing, at which time objections to any of the proposed recommendations can be thrashed out. e Mr. Williams lTOved seconded by Mr. Hamel to adopt the recommendations Corom of the task force. 10/29/75 Mr. Williams raised concerns regarding biting dogs. The penalties seem Approve greater if a dog chases livestock than if it bites a human. Too, a $50 fine for failure to contain a biting dog seems mild when dealing with lives or the possibility of a person having to go through a very painful treatment if rabies is discovered. Assistant Manager reported that this wording conforms to state law. , In answer to a question from Mr. Murray regarding a Eugene dog owner paying three different ways, Assistant Manager answered that is in essence true - a dog owner pays for a license, pays for a contribution from the general fund of the city to offset costs plus pays through the county's general fund contributions to offset animal control costs in the unincorporated areas. The shift underway would provide that city dog owners pay for city dog control. Hopefully no city funds would pay for county costs. Money would also be used for education programs fdr dog owners. Mr. Bradley commented that, in hearing testimony, the task force opted for an increase in license fees since there is some impracticality in raising the fines. Those fines are sometimes difficult and expensive to collect. Mr. Keller expressed concern regarding the fact that the revenue is e experiencing such a deficit due to upgrading in positions. He also is hopeful that do~ owners are not strapped unnecessarily over and above non-dog owners. He would like those two concerns addressed by the time of the hearing. Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimoUSly. 588 11/10/75 - 13