10/26/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

of a spay-neuter program had come from Springfield, saying if even e one animal were altered, it would save seven from being handled by the pound. He felt integrity between the three jurisdictions was jeopardized when each time one balks, the other two have to go back and make another compromise. He noted Springfield had balked at the cost and then had locked Lane County and Eugene into a position of Springfield not paying anything. He felt it set a bad precedent for Lane County and any future joint ventures between the three jurisdictions. He said Lane County had not disagreed, but had agreed to pick up Springfield's share of paying, yet Springfield still balked. He said he did not feel it a good plan for Lane County or for the citizens of Eugene, and would make that recommendation to the Commis- sioners. He felt if Eugene and Springfield agreed to go ahead, then the future of the program would be with Springfield to decide to participate or not. He felt the terms of the original agreement should be adhered to by all three jurisdictions. Ms. Smith asked for clarification, wondering if Mr. Dwyer were saying he would recommend Lane County not agree to the amendment to the original agreement because of concessions that would have to be made to Springfield. Mr. Dwyer replied yes. Mr. Williams then questioned Mr. Dwyer as to what he was asking the Eugene City Council to do. Mr. Dwyer replied Lane County would re- affirm the original agreement, that the amendment is not necessary and the desire is to move ahead with acquisition of property in e building the pound. He said Lane County would prefer that the City Council of Eugene reaffirm no concessions are necessary and the City Council would approve going ahead with the program. Mr. Bradley said he understood Mr. Dwyer was saying the Eugene City Council does not have to approve the amendment because it is unneces- sary, and asked if the original agreement included a spay/neuter program. He questioned whether Springfield could still not contribute to the program under the original agreement. He said if so, the amendment was not necessary; if not, then the amendment was necessary. Mr. Dwyer said the position taken by Eugene and Lane County will determine whether the Tri-Agency will flourish or die. He said if no amendment were adopted by either jurisdiction, and Springfield refuses, then Springfield would have to take the initiative. In seeking legal counsel regarding the original agreement, he said Springfield thought the amendment was necessary; Eugene staff felt it might be; and Lane County felt it was not. Assistant Manager responded to the question of legality in the original contract, that to modify it was redundant. He said the language was in part to reaffirm the commitment to stay in the Tri-Agency. Springfield had recognized the spay-neuter clinic as part of the original intent. In every respect, the original agreement identified how deficits were to be picked up. He said staff agreed more with Lane County's e 10/26/77--11 8~