Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Piercy said the council's discussion should not be interpreted as a reflection on Lane County, the <br />current service provider. The council's focus was on the City's budgetary limitations. Speaking to the <br />issue of barking dogs, Mayor Piercy asked what other options the City could its citizens if Lane County <br />was not going to respond to barking dogs. She believed that currently barking must exceed a length of <br />time and the barking must be recorded. <br />Ms. Taylor said it was untrue that people had to record a dog barking. Dogs were considered guilty of <br />barking until proven innocent under current practice, and she thought there was something wrong with <br />that and called for future discussion. <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Hill indicated the City had a range of fines that would ve <br />reviewed by the judge. Ms. Taylor asked if the City was considering raising license fees. Mr. Hill <br />indicated that was under discussion. He said that staff would compare the City's fines and fees with other <br />jurisdictions in central Lane County and discuss whether they should be more consistent. <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor about stakeholders in the study, Mr. Hill identified the key <br />stakeholders as the organizations providing the service, City of Eugene and Lane County, and said the <br />community had more than 50 animal advocacy organizations he anticipated would be involved. There <br />were many residents interested in some aspect of animal welfare. He emphasized staff's intent to have a <br />range of ways to gather input. <br />Assistant City Manager Medary pointed out that several stakeholders were present, including Karen <br />Gaffney and Tom Howard from LCAS, Executive Director Cary Lieberman of Greenhill and Marilyn <br />Waters, the City's supervising veterinarian. <br />Ms. Taylor asked if staff had discussed cat licensing. Mr. Hill said his research found no successful cat <br />licensing program in Oregon, only voluntary approaches. <br />Ms. Taylor asked if staff had discussed the concept of offering residents free spay and neuter services. <br />Mr. Hill said his research did not find any Oregon city that provided free services. Most cities provided <br />far less funding for animal services than Eugene because they depended on counties for funding. In many <br />areas, no animal services were provided by local government at all. In some areas, only nonprofit service <br />providers existed. Ms. Taylor suggested that such services would be cost - effective because they would <br />reduce the number of unwanted animals. <br />Ms. Ortiz asked if the City had considered having its own staff work at LCAS, and if there would be cost <br />savings involved. Mr. Hill responded the study would attempt to answer that question. There were many <br />different models to consider. Some cities provided all services in -house and others contracted for <br />services; currently, the City took a hybrid approach and contracted for some services and provided other <br />services in- house. Staff would try to attempt to answer the question of what model best fit Eugene. <br />Ms. Ortiz expressed disappointment that the Budget Committee had chosen to fund Animal Services at the <br />level it had when that action had precluded the option for a second CAHOOTS van, which she thought <br />was vital to the City's public safety efforts in downtown. <br />Mr. Zelenka was supportive of the service but concerned about its costs. He noted that only 11 of 37 <br />cities listed in the survey had a budgetary line item for animal services and suggested that was because <br />most cities relied on counties for the service. Mr. Hill agreed. He said that some cities might have <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council September 27, 2010 Page 5 <br />Work Session <br />