06/10/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ e e Mr. Lindberg stated that this is a sensitive matter and nationally, dog control complaints are the number one complaints in most cities in the United States. This has been a grave problem locally, although slow progress is being made. Eugene's needs are different from those of Springfield and unincorporated areas of Lane County. Since the City of Eugene has taken the initiative, he wonders if it might not be better for the City to pursue this matter on its own. He complimented staff and the task force for their statements of the goals to be achieved. The goals and objectives are excellent and should be used for standards to increase public safety and humane animal treatment. His concern is that the task force proposal removes Eugene too far from the solution to make it actually work. He also thinks Mr. Dwyer made some good points regarding the facility ownership. Unless there are contingency plans, however, it is not possible for him to support this resolution. Ownership of the property should be included in the lease arrangement. If the City of Eugene takes back control of this program and it becomes a political problem, this could leave the City in a vulnerable position and the kennel service could be discontinued. Private contracting is the reason this became an issue in the beginning. He has no personal feelings against Greenhill and respects their rights to not open their books or have the City change their procedures so that their procedures meet City standards. However, that makes it inconceivable that the City should operate with them. He disagrees to some extent with Ms. Miller's comments that the performance contracts are the most important portion of this process. He feels that animal control is the most important portion. The City will be requesting more services and now they are asking someone else to do their job, which he thinks is not acting in a very responsible manner. This is a temporary solution and historically, animal control has taken a long time for new remedies to replace the existing situations. He feels any solutions should be long-term because this should not be viewed as an experiment. He feels it is not an ideal situation to initiate another cooperative work program with the County. He would feel better if the County and Springfield would contract with the City of Eugene to provide the service. He feels the City should take the responsibility for its problem as it seems that two-thirds of the total problem is Eugene's problem anyway. Ms. Miller stated that she and Ms. Schue had discussed and extensively con- sidered City control as a solution. If the council wants someone else to take over negotiations, another task force could be appointed, but she thinks it would end up the same way since they tried but were unable to accomplish City control. Mr. Gleason stated that there is a need to develop a contingency plan, particulary regarding ownership of the facility. The contingency plan worked well with the ambulance situation and could be done with this situation as well. Staff could develop a plan, but it will take longer than 30 days and within 30 days, something must be in place since Tri-Agency will no longer be in existence at that time. Staff has worked on this issue and spoken with George Morgan and Steve Burkett. Mr. Gleason stated that, in his opinion, it is not possible for the City to become the contracting agent. There is not a consensus of the service level between the three jurisdictions. Eugene does not desire the same service level as Springfield and Lane County. Unless more funding can be found, Eugene can either handle enforcement or enter into a performance contract. In either case, the City desires increased standards. This experi- ence could provide consideration of other opportunities at a later date. He MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 1981 Page 9