Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Osborn called attention to the draft code language included in the meeting packet and recommended changes that would: (1) Define “service animal”; (2) Expand the definition of animal abuse to include physical injury to a service animal; (3) Require owners to notify the Lane County Health Officer not only for animals biting humans, but for animals biting service animals as well; (4) Modify the code to change references to “handicapped person” to “person with a disability”; (5) Add violations and sanctions for potentially dangerous dogs for causing harm to service animals; (6) Provide the Hearings Official the ability to restitution and training for potentially dangerous dogs; and (7) Expand the exemption for dog licensing to include dogs qualifying as service animals. Ms. Osborn reported that City staff was working with Springfield and Lane County Animal Services (LCAS) on other possible code change recommendations intended to ensure greater consistency between the codes of the three jurisdictions. She noted that staff had shared the recommendations outlined with Municipal Court Judge Wayne Allen and LCAS, and they were generally supportive. Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments. Mr. Poling preferred to see the proposed sanction elevated to a higher degree. He said the code did not appear to require that the service animal be identifiable as such or that it have documentation on file with LCAS that identified it as a service animal and asked if that had been discussed. Ms. Osborn said no. She said staff had suggested a definition of service animal that was consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act, which did not require such identification. She said staff would examine ways to achieve that goal without changing the definition. She said Ms. Otten had indicated in discussions with City and LCAS staff that she believed it would be rare for a service animal not to be identifiable. Ms. Otten pointed out that such animals were in public to perform a task for their owner, which made them more identifiable. Mr. Clark believed the recommendations were sound and expressed support for moving forward. Ms. Ortiz asked for more information about the licensing and training for service animals. Ms. Osborn said that people could not merely label an animal a service animal for any purpose. The training service animals received was extensive and the type of service animal was limited to specifically trained dogs and miniature horses. Ms. Otten added that service animals as well as their owners were trained to do particular tasks. She distinguished service animals from companion animals, which did not fall under the ADA definition. Ms. Otten was not aware of any organization that certified service animals. Ms. Ortiz recalled an encounter with an individual who claimed a badly behaved pit bull was a service dog and asked what people could do in such cases. Ms. Otten said that one could legally ask a person with a service animal what task the animal was trained to do, and one had every right to ask the owner of unruly dog of any kind, including a service dog, to leave. Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Otten shared some of tasks service animals were trained to do. She confirmed that the cost of training a guide dog was very expensive, estimating it at $50,000. Mr. Zelenka believed that the cost involved justified the payment of restitution. Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Osborn said that Lane County and Springfield did not have similar code provisions as yet. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 9, 2010 Page 6 Work Session