11/12/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

at least to break even. The fee would be set by ordinance and could not be changed e except by Council action, he said, and if revenues did not meet program costs, then staff would corne back to the Council for a determination as to whether general funds should be used. Mayor Anderson questioned the use of general funds, saying those who chose not to own pets should not have to subsidize those who do own pets. Councilman Murray asked what would happen to general funds currently budgeted for dog control, both in Eugene and in Lane County. Mr. ,Martin answered that the present program, if continued, would approach $75,000 annually. Estimatee contri- bution for the current year to the new progrma is $53,000, and commitment to the new program would mean no funds budgeted in the general fund for the 1976-77 year. The question of the County's general fund monies, he said, was their burden because of the separation of the three agencies' revenues and expenditures. Councilman Hamel asked what funds would be used if there was a $60,000 to $70,000 deficit at the end of 1976-77, considering that no funds would be budgeted for dog control. And he wondered if the $341,000 budgeted for the program was realistic. Captain Larion of the police department said the projected costs of operating a pound and animal control authority appeared realistic at this point, considering that now the city is contracting with the county for actual services received. Part of that contract covers Humane Society pound services, he said, but there are no funds included for a spaying program or a license soliciting program. Mr. Martin added that there has been no projected increase of revenues from enforcement or adjudica- tion processes, so the statement of revenues appeared reasonable. Councilwoman Beal wondered if consideration had been given to a lower fee for license renewal. She thought a one-time license might give more protection for dogs picked up and taken to the pound, a better method of notification to the e owners. Mr. Martin answered that the cost of retrieving a dog licensed one time would be the same as retrieving an unlicensed animal, and there would be the same ability to notify the owner. In response to Mr. Bradley's suggestion for multi- year licensing, he said that had been explored but found undesirable because of the high turnover in the pet population. There would appear to be no difficulty in administering a multi-year licensing program, but there didn't appear to be the demand at this time. Discussion turned to the delay in the licensing program at the present time in " anticipation of the new program and the higher fee, and trying to meet the November 15 deadline to avoid overloading the county licensing staff. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Hamel to authorize negotiations with Springfield with regard to the license fee for dogs belonging to elderly people. Councilwoman Beal thought the dog license fee should be reduced to $4.75 for owners 65 and older, in line with the fee proposed by Springfield. Mr, Murray withdrew his motion, with the consent of the second, saying that it would appear more logical to instruct staff as to the nature of the negotiations to be carried on. Mrs. Beal moved second by Mr. Murray that licenses for dogs (regardless of whether spayed) belonging to people 65 and older within Eugene be set at the neutered or spayed rate - $4.75. Councilman Williams commented that the age of the owners made little difference in the behavior of the pets. Mayor Anderson cautioned that the strength of the e proposed program is the incentive to achieve dog control. And he thought most older people would agree that the dog population should be less. Mrs. Beal, however, said the older people should be given the advantage, this was one area where the city could help older people on fixed incomes. 11/12/75 - 2 "0,8