Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Hill anticipated the study would be completed by the end of the fiscal year but believed it could produce useful information prior to that for use in the budget process. He briefly noted the subjects that would be studied in Phase 2 and the stakeholders that would be involved. He invited questions. Mayor Piercy said the council’s discussion should not be interpreted as a reflection on Lane County, the current service provider. The council’s focus was on the City’s budgetary limitations. Speaking to the issue of barking dogs, Mayor Piercy asked what other options the City could its citizens if Lane County was not going to respond to barking dogs. She believed that currently barking must exceed a length of time and the barking must be recorded. Ms. Taylor said it was untrue that people had to record a dog barking. Dogs were considered guilty of barking until proven innocent under current practice, and she thought there was something wrong with that and called for future discussion. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Hill indicated the City had a range of fines that would ve reviewed by the judge. Ms. Taylor asked if the City was considering raising license fees. Mr. Hill indicated that was under discussion. He said that staff would compare the City’s fines and fees with other jurisdic- tions in central Lane County and discuss whether they should be more consistent. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor about stakeholders in the study, Mr. Hill identified the key stakeholders as the organizations providing the service, City of Eugene and Lane County, and said the community had more than 50 animal advocacy organizations he anticipated would be involved. There were many residents interested in some aspect of animal welfare. He emphasized staff’s intent to have a range of ways to gather input. Assistant City Manager Medary pointed out that several stakeholders were present, including Karen Gaffney and Tom Howard from LCAS, Executive Director Cary Lieberman of Greenhill and Marilyn Waters, the City’s supervising veterinarian. Ms. Taylor asked if staff had discussed cat licensing. Mr. Hill said his research found no successful cat licensing program in Oregon, only voluntary approaches. Ms. Taylor asked if staff had discussed the concept of offering residents free spay and neuter services. Mr. Hill said his research did not find any Oregon city that provided free services. Most cities provided far less funding for animal services than Eugene because they depended on counties for funding. In many areas, no animal services were provided by local government at all. In some areas, only nonprofit service providers existed. Ms. Taylor suggested that such services would be cost-effective because they would reduce the number of unwanted animals. Ms. Ortiz asked if the City had considered having its own staff work at LCAS, and if there would be cost savings involved. Mr. Hill responded the study would attempt to answer that question. There were many different models to consider. Some cities provided all services in-house and others contracted for services; currently, the City took a hybrid approach and contracted for some services and provided other services in- house. Staff would try to attempt to answer the question of what model best fit Eugene. Ms. Ortiz expressed disappointment that the Budget Committee had chosen to fund Animal Services at the level it had when that action had precluded the option for a second CAHOOTS van, which she thought was vital to the City’s public safety efforts in downtown. MINUTES—City Council September 27, 2010 Page 5 Work Session