Laserfiche WebLink
February 26, 2010 <br />Joint Elected Officials Meeting <br />City of Springfield <br />City of Eugene <br />Lane County <br /> <br />Page 9 of 13 <br /> <br /> <br />Ms. Gaffney referred to information in the PowerPoint regarding licensing sales from 2004 to the <br />current date. She noted the increase in 2004 and 2005, which was largely due to the implementation <br />of rabies reporting on licensing. There was a renewed push over the last year-and-a-half which pushed <br />those numbers up again. The figures were for Eugene and unincorporated Lane County. <br /> <br />Councilor Ralston asked when the dog ownership per household limit was increased from two to three <br />in Eugene. <br /> <br />Ms. Gaffney said it was last August. <br /> <br />Councilor Ralston noted an increase in 2009, and thought it might be from that change. <br /> <br />Ms. Gaffney said they had canvassed to promote licensing in 2009, so that may have contributed more <br />to the increase. She referred to a chart in the PowerPoint showing the number of dogs entering the <br />shelter from all three jurisdictions. Those numbers were going down, which was intentional. The focus <br />was that if the sale of licenses increased, dogs went home without going into the shelter. They also <br />charged the officers in the field to work with people to find out what type of resources they needed to <br />care for their animal. Last fiscal year, about half of the animals at the shelter were from Eugene, about <br />a quarter from the County, and about 19 percent from Springfield. She referred to information <br />regarding the field calls, citations and number of abuse and neglect cases in FY09. <br /> <br />Councilor Poling asked if they had the breakdown of how many were in Eugene and how many in the <br />County. <br /> <br />Ms. Gaffney said she had those figures at her office, but not in the PowerPoint. She said she could get <br />that information for him. She referred to the chart on Live Release Rate, a tool used at shelters to get a <br />euthanasia rate. Lane County had an overall rate of over 94 percent, which was very good for an open- <br />door shelter such as Lane County. Greenhill was a closed-door shelter that could turn away dogs that <br />had significant health or behavioral problems. <br /> <br />Ms. Gaffney discussed issues with the current facility: aging and too small, inadequate segregation in <br />lobby and animal areas, not supportive of animal evaluations or adoption processes and inefficient for <br />maintenance and workflow. She displayed photos of the facility and noted some improvements that <br />had been made, including signage. <br /> <br />Ms. Gaffney described the kenneling at the current facility that had been designed 30 years ago, and <br />how designs for kennels had changed since that time. She said the policy questions for today were how <br />the costs of a new facility might be shared publicly and privately, how best to leverage the LCAS and <br />Greenhill sites, and if there were opportunities to better serve the public through code changes, <br />licensing, etc. The County Administrator had convened a small group made up of representatives from <br />all three jurisdictions to focus on what it would take to finance and operate a new shelter. A report <br />would be issued from that group on some of the options regarding financing. <br /> <br />Mayor Leiken asked if every County in Oregon provided animal services. <br /> <br />Ms. Gaffney said she had not contacted all counties, but she believed that most provided dog control. <br /> <br />