Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Zelenka was supportive of the service but concerned about its costs. He noted that only 11 of 37 cities listed in the survey had a budgetary line item for animal services and suggested that was because most cities relied on counties for the service. Mr. Hill agreed. He said that some cities might have incidental funding for animal services because their police were responsible for responding to code violations. Those costs were often minor and buried in police personnel budgets and hard to discern. Mr. Zelenka noted that Eugene spent more money, $3.28 per capita, than any city on the survey. Eugene spent two times more than most cities, which he attributed to the different levels of services provided by different jurisdictions. He determined from Mr. Hill that Phase 2 would answer the question of what services those communities provided as well as the cost and outcomes. At the request of Mr. Brown, Ms. Waters clarified some of the terms used in Attachment 1. Responding to a question from Mr. Clark, Mr. Hill said the judge was looking only at fine levels in Phase 1 of the study and was not contemplating other penalties. Mr. Clark shared that he had been contacted by residents who shared stories about vicious dogs who harmed other animals when roaming at large and while their owners were fined their animals were returned to them. Mr. Hill indicated staff could look at the policy issues related to that in Phase 2. Mr. Clark endorsed that examination. Mr. Clark also suggested that staff consider what it could do to increase the licensing revenues through incentives to Lane County. Mr. Clark asked if the City had a “Plan B” if the County lost additional funding that affected LACS’ budget. Mr. Hill said additional revenue losses would impact the City and staff was keeping a close watch on the County budget. While the City did not yet have a plan to address that, Mr. Hill believed it increased the importance of having in-depth and honest discussions with the various stakeholders in the service. Mr. Clark asked if the State mandated the County provide the service. Mr. Hill did not think counties were required to provide the service because many counties did not. Mr. Poling expressed support for the review of fines and fees and was also interested in other sanctions to address the subject of vicious dogs. He thanked LCAS staff for the work it did. Ms. Solomon thanked Mr. Hill for his work. She determined that Mr. Hill was familiar with the work done in Calgary. Mr. Hill indicated he was also familiar with the work being done in King County, Washington, and Wasco County, Nevada, and would attempt to learn what he could from other areas of the country. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Hill indicated he would look into why senior citizens paid less for licensing their dogs. B. WORK SESSION: City Manager Evaluation Follow-up The council was joined by Human Resources Director Alana Holmes and Performance Evaluation Manager Denise Smith. Ms. Holmes reminded the council of its evaluation of the City Manager in July 2010. As directed, staff had returned with a proposed compensation structure and new performance rating system for future evaluations. City Attorney Glenn Klein and Ms. Holmes reviewed the council-requested changes. MINUTES—City Council September 27, 2010 Page 6 Work Session