11/12/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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