06/10/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e agrees with the established standards but knows of no way other than the per- formance contract to make certain that they occur. Mr. Lindberg asked how a 30-day time period could be in effect when the motion before the council has not been approved. Ms. Miller responded that six months' notice had been previously given to Tri-Agency. Mr. Whitlow added that both Eugene and Spring- field gave notice and as of July 1, 1981, there will be no Tri-Agency Animal Control Authority. It was action taken in agreement to the policy board commit- tee's recommendation. Ms. Wooten asked if people are afraid that the County will not do a good job. Ms. Miller stated that a substantial group of people feel that the current Tri-Agency management would not support the City's goals. Ms. Wooten asked who would monitor the program since Tri-Agency is being dis- solved. She asked how it would be determined whether the goals are being met. Mr. Whitlow stated that it will be done by the City Manager's Office which will receive monthly reports from the County with regard to the City's expectations of animal control. Mr. Gleason stated that if he can deal with the adminis- trators and speak only to the issues, he does not feel there will be any con- cerns. They are leaning heavily on the performance standards and if they are met, there will be no concern. At least there would be a gO-day period for transition rather than two hours to implement the contingency plan as was the situation with emergency medical service. Ms. Wooten stated that she would vote for the motion assuming that ongoing monitoring and evaluation would occur. Mr. Hamel stated that originally he felt the City should contract with Green- hill, but Ms. Miller and Ms. Schue were assigned to study and make a recommenda- tion. Mr. Lindberg stated that he does not have the solutions nor any hidden agendas, but he knows there have been disagreements over these services in the past. Being closer to the management will provide better control and monitoring. There are different ways to approach the problem. The differences are of special importance to those involved in dog control. He stated that if the resolution is approved now, there will be no way to develop a complete contingency plan within 30 days. He asked what would happen if in 60 days the plan is not working. Mr. Gleason stated that the City could handle the enforce- ment. The physical structure was the major hurdle. If there is a breach of the contract, he would like to be able to work with the other jurisdictions. Roll call vote; motion carried 6:1 with Councilor Lindberg voting no. Mr. Gleason stated that he would bring back a contingency plan for the council IS approval. Ms. Wooten stated that she does not ~nderstand the management dif- ferences that have occurred and would like clarification. Mr. Gleason indicated that this would be provided. B. Citizen Involvement Committee's Recommendation on Citizen Advisory Committee for Chambers Connector (memo distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Pat Decker, Planning. Ms. Decker stated that the Chambers Connector is identified in the Eugene-Springfield Area 2000 Transpor- tation Plan (T-2000) as a four-lane arterial connecting River Road with 6th and 7th avenues, and incorporating a railroad overpass over the main Southern MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 1981 Page 10