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