Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Meisner said that the Budget Committee had not identified the service as a budget priority, but it was an <br />important service. He said that the City had to consider its own roles and limitations as they related to the <br />County and the services funded through LCARA. He looked forward to the staff analysis of that. He said <br />that the City could not take responsibility for the County's services, and the council must be sensitive to that <br />issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said the community comparisons offered by the task force were not helpful because it did not <br />include information about the size of the communities involved, their budgets, or their tax bases. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked if LCARA could handle the increased license load with existing resources. Mr. Bartlett <br />indicated that some additional support staff would be required, but those costs would be paid for by fees. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner spoke to the issue of numerical limits on the number of pets and said he often heard from City <br />residents that the limits should not be increased. He thought urban areas differed from rural areas in that <br />sense. He said that without enforcement, nothing could be done to address problems from increased <br />numbers of pets. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ thanked the task force for its work and commended the report as one of the best he had seen. He <br />appreciated the scope of the information that had been gathered, and found the measures to be interesting. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ asked what Springfield was doing in terms of animal control and why it dropped out of the tri- <br />agency pact that existed many years ago. Mr. Wellington responded that Springfield hired an animal control <br />officer and Lane County contracted for the housing of those animals. Responding to a follow-up question <br />from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Wellington said Lane County and Springfield were currently in negotiations regarding <br />the housing of cats from Springfield. Mr. Bartlett noted that Springfield had far fewer dogs than Eugene <br />and thus was less concerned about the issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ asked how the Board of County Commissioners had responded to the report. Mr. Bartlett believed <br />a majority of the commissioners would vote to support a majority of the task force's recommendations, <br />although not all of them. He acknowledged that the pet food tax proposal was controversial. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ asked if more thorough licensing efforts could address the funding issue. Mr. Bartlett said that it <br />could. The rabies policy itself had the byproduct of increasing licensing revenue, but that would require a <br />coordinated City-County effort and possibly an increase in the annual licensing fee. Ms. Pomes noted that <br />the City received about $80,000 in licensing fees now, and a three-fold increase would not replace the <br />revenue that was needed. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly complimented the task force on a thorough job and expressed appreciation for the research the <br />task force had done. He hoped the task force's recommendations would be well-publicized. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked staff to provide the council with a memorandum regarding the fact the vast majority of the <br />recommendations were exclusive to the County or required it to take the lead on implementing the <br />recommendation. He asked how the City's efforts were related to those of the County. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said the low license and compliance rate were a %ad state of affairs" for both animal and <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 12, 2004 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />