Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/12/1975 Meeting ~ e M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL November 12, 1975 Adjourned meeting - from November 10, 1975 - of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 12:00 noon on November 12, 1975 in the McNutt Room with the following Council members present: Neil Murray, Wickes Beal, Tom Williams, Ray Bradley, D. W. Hamel, Eric Haws, and Edna Shirey. Councilman Gus Keller was absent. I - Code Amendment re: Dog Control Carried over for Council deliberation on questions raised at November 10, 1975 meeting. Assistant Manager Keith Martin explained modifications in the new draft - consistent with Springfield's ordinance - with regard to handling of violations. He said dis- cussion is still taking place on whether to direct violations to a hearings officer or to a small claims court. In the meantime, municipal court has the responsibility. Mr. Martin referred to questions raised at the November 10 meeting, one being that of full animal control. He said the proposed ordinance was concerned with dog control only. Costs resulting from injured livestock, etc., were not intended to be borne by dog license fees. Rather, this program is an attempt to create the machinery for effective dog control through a uniform program. With regard to the question. ' of services from Lane Humane Society, Mr. Martin said it is intended to explore with the Society after broad policy issues are settled whether some of the services can be provided through that agency. e Discussion turned to specific sections of the ordinance with Councilman Bradley objecting to the wording "no person shall own" as it refers to barking dogs. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, explained that that language was used to avoid a prob- lem of rejecting ownership. A dog owner as defined in the code is more than the usual concept of an owner; it could mean harboring a dog, a dog not under control, etc. Fees were discussed, Mr. Martin explaing that Springfield was proposing a lower fee for licensing dogs owned by elderly persons. He said Eugene staff favored a lower license fee through the spaying and neutering program rather than in the fee struc- ture itself, thereby attempting to reduce the dog population while giving the opportunity for the $4.75 fee. Mrs. Beal thought there would be a lesser problem with dogs owned by elderly people since there was the tendency to keep the pets more closely confined. But Mr. Murray answered that the $9.50 fee would discourage licens- ing dogs at all and result in less revenues for the program. Mrs. Shirey thought the $9.50 fee too high, that the program should be subsidized through general funds be- cause of its benefit to the general public. Mr. Martin emphasized that the program would have to be administered through an aggressive door-to-door licensing program. If that commitment wasn't made, raising the fee to $9.50 would be counterproductive. Dave Jordan, member of the task force, said the idea was to set the licensing fee high enough to foce people to have their pets spayed or neutered to be eligible for a lower fee. Mr. Haws commented that it appeared then to be a case of raising the license fee or raising the fines, if the program was to be self-sustaining. Councilman Bradley wondered if raising the fee to $9.50 would mean that no general funds at all would be used. He thought a ceiling should be set at $9.50 so that if the program was not self-sustaining at that point, general revenues could be used. e Mr. Martin answered that both Springfield and Lane County made a policy judgment that the dog control program would not draw from general revenues. He said the possibility of a deficit, especially during the first year of operation, was discussed, but if the aggressive licensing program was kept up, it was reasonable to expect the program 11/12/75 - 1 ~o7 at least to break even. The fee would be set by ordinance and could not be changed e except by Council action, he said, and if revenues did not meet program costs, then staff would corne back to the Council for a determination as to whether general funds should be used. Mayor Anderson questioned the use of general funds, saying those who chose not to own pets should not have to subsidize those who do own pets. Councilman Murray asked what would happen to general funds currently budgeted for dog control, both in Eugene and in Lane County. Mr. ,Martin answered that the present program, if continued, would approach $75,000 annually. Estimatee contri- bution for the current year to the new progrma is $53,000, and commitment to the new program would mean no funds budgeted in the general fund for the 1976-77 year. The question of the County's general fund monies, he said, was their burden because of the separation of the three agencies' revenues and expenditures. Councilman Hamel asked what funds would be used if there was a $60,000 to $70,000 deficit at the end of 1976-77, considering that no funds would be budgeted for dog control. And he wondered if the $341,000 budgeted for the program was realistic. Captain Larion of the police department said the projected costs of operating a pound and animal control authority appeared realistic at this point, considering that now the city is contracting with the county for actual services received. Part of that contract covers Humane Society pound services, he said, but there are no funds included for a spaying program or a license soliciting program. Mr. Martin added that there has been no projected increase of revenues from enforcement or adjudica- tion processes, so the statement of revenues appeared reasonable. Councilwoman Beal wondered if consideration had been given to a lower fee for license renewal. She thought a one-time license might give more protection for dogs picked up and taken to the pound, a better method of notification to the e owners. Mr. Martin answered that the cost of retrieving a dog licensed one time would be the same as retrieving an unlicensed animal, and there would be the same ability to notify the owner. In response to Mr. Bradley's suggestion for multi- year licensing, he said that had been explored but found undesirable because of the high turnover in the pet population. There would appear to be no difficulty in administering a multi-year licensing program, but there didn't appear to be the demand at this time. Discussion turned to the delay in the licensing program at the present time in " anticipation of the new program and the higher fee, and trying to meet the November 15 deadline to avoid overloading the county licensing staff. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Hamel to authorize negotiations with Springfield with regard to the license fee for dogs belonging to elderly people. Councilwoman Beal thought the dog license fee should be reduced to $4.75 for owners 65 and older, in line with the fee proposed by Springfield. Mr, Murray withdrew his motion, with the consent of the second, saying that it would appear more logical to instruct staff as to the nature of the negotiations to be carried on. Mrs. Beal moved second by Mr. Murray that licenses for dogs (regardless of whether spayed) belonging to people 65 and older within Eugene be set at the neutered or spayed rate - $4.75. Councilman Williams commented that the age of the owners made little difference in the behavior of the pets. Mayor Anderson cautioned that the strength of the e proposed program is the incentive to achieve dog control. And he thought most older people would agree that the dog population should be less. Mrs. Beal, however, said the older people should be given the advantage, this was one area where the city could help older people on fixed incomes. 11/12/75 - 2 "0,8 ~ . e Vote was taken on motion to set the fee at $4.75 for licensing dogs of owners 65 and older. Motion carried - Council members Murray, Beal, Bradley, Haws, and Shirey voting aye; Counci 1 members Williams and Hamel voting no. Councilman Bradley questioned the 24-hour period for considering a dog as having been abandoned. Also, the entry onto private property for the purpose of impound- ing a dog. He said many times a dog is not really abandoned if people leave a pet with adequate food and water. Mr. Jordan explained the purpose of the 24-hour requirement was to give enforcement people authority to deal with a dog left alone and barking continuously. He said -it was one of the thing that most quickly can cause a neighborhood uprising. Councilman Murray suggested 72 hours was a more reasonable period for keeping im- pounded unlicensed dogs before they are destroyed because of weekend vacations, etc. Mr. Bradley suggested 120 hours as now in the code for licensed dogs would be even more appropriate. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Hamel to provide for a 72-hour period before destroying an unclaimed, unlicensed, impounded dog. Mr. Martin noted the attempt at uniformity in regulations adopted by the three agencies and said he would approach Springfield and Lane County to see if they would be agreeable to the proposed 72-hour period. Mrs. Shirey was in favor of the longer period. She expressed concerns about costs involved. Mr. Jordan explained that adding a day would add no significant cost. And what costs are involved, he said, are reclaimed if the owner can be found. Mr. Martin added, in further response to e Mrs. Shirey, that the present practice is to return dogs to their owners if they can be identified when a dog is picked up, making it difficult to determine the number of dogs actually picked up. Manager said that according to National Humane Society figures, only 9/15% of animals picked up are actually reclaimed, which would indicate great irresponsibility on the part of animal owners. Councilman Haws asked why the 48-hour period was chosen. Mr. Jordan responded that it was to provide incentive to people to keep their dogs confined. Mr. Bradley moved second by Mrs. Shirey to amend the motion to provide for a 96-hour period before an unlicensed impounded dog is destroyed. Motion defeated - Council members Bradley and Shirey voting aye; Council members Murray, Williams, Hamel, and Haws voting no; Council- woman Beal abstaining. Vote was taken on the main motion to provide a 72-hour period before an unlicensed impounded dog is destroyed. Motion carried unanimously. The section of the proposed ordinance concerning dogs chasing livestock was next discussed. Mr. Martin explained that the language was modified from an earlier draft of the ordinance and did not eliminate the regulations in that respect. In response to Councilman Bradley, Mr. Long said it would be illegal to kill a dog chasing livestock. Mr. Jordan added that this section deals more often with situa- tions occurring under county jurisdiction. But Mr. Bradley asked for report of county regulations, expressing concern that the county code might provide for destruction of a dog chasing livestock rather than just a $25.00 fine to the owner of the dog, and it might be desirable to have uniformity in that regard. e With regard to the proposed regulation governing biting and rabid dogs, Mr. Bradley suggested using the word "animal" because of the possibility of other than dogs carrying rabies. Mr. Long explained that the task force was not charged with deal- ing with animals other than dogs. However, they noted that by being so charged; other animals would be excluded from the rabies program. ~O~ 11/12/75 - 3 . , ~ Mr. Bradley moved second by Mr. Hamel to include other animals in e the section dealing with rabies inoculation requirements. Motion carried unanimously. Councilwoman Beal inquired about dogs killing livestock, what the penalties were. Mr. Jordan said that state law allows such dogs to be killed, however by ordinance, firing guns within city limits is prohibited. Mr. Martin added that the owner can gain compensation for losses of livestock through a county board established for that purpose. Councilman Bradley again expressed concern about entry onto private land in order to impound a dog. Mr. Long responded that provisions in this ordinance did not change state law as it now exists. Also, that the example given by Mr. Bradley of the possibility of the occupant being an II-year old child was a constitutional question. Councilman Williams referred to the section covering definitions and asked about the penalty for owners of biting dogs not known to be inoculated for rabies, whether they would be subject to severe damages if a person had to undergo rabies injections. Mr. Long didn't think so. Mr. Martin said there were no incarceration penalties. Mrs. Shirey asked if anything was being done about cats. The Mayor thought it would probably be on the agenda:some time in view of Springfield's recent action in that regard. . Mr. Martin said that until an effective dog control program was in opera- tion, trying to deal with cats would be very difficult. C~)Uncilman Murray asked if a breach of this ordinance would be interpreted as a e breach of contract. Mr. Long said the possibility hadn't occurred to him, that no contract with anyone was subject to being breached. There were no further Councilor staff comments, and the Chair recognized Everett McVicker, director of Lane Humane Society. Mr. McVicker said the contract between the Humane Society and Lane Count~which will expire December 31, 1975, spells out provisions for holding dogs. If this ordinance under discussion was adopted and enforced, he said, that would be a breach of contract. He continued that the Society's contract with Springfield has a year to run. Therefore, negotiations would be more difficult for continuing the services after January I under the present con- tract with the county. With regard to the percentage of unclaimed dogs, Mr. McVicker said the Society had been experiencing in excess of one-third being returned to the owners. Mr. Jordan commented that Springfield had adopted the fee structure only, and anticipated adopting the ordinance by sections rather than all at once. Councilman Murray asked for comment about the claimed "breach of contract." Mr. Long said he didn't think it possible to respond to the statement, that he didn't under- stand what breach would be avoided by changing the ordinance. At Mr. Bradley's suggestion that the contract terms for holding dogs could be expanded beyond the ordinance time stipulations, Mr. Long said that was possible, but that it would be a matter of administration. Setting up a schedule for destruction of dogs dif- ference from terms of the ordinance could bring claims because of violations. Mr. Martin added that one reason permissive language was used in the ordinance with regard to destruct in of dogs was because of the three-day weekends, etc. He said staff would endeavor to stay as close to the 72-hour provision as possible. There was some discussion with regard to working out uniform terms with Springfield, . with Mr. Bradley suggesting tabling of the section having to do with the time period for impoundment before destruction. However, it was decided staff position would be much stronger in negotiations with Springfield if a specific regulation was adopted. 11/12/75 - 4 1:,10 ~ --------=--~ --- . . e Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams to amend the proposed ordinance to provide: $4.75 license fee for dogs owned by persons 65 and older; 72-hour holding period for unlicensed, unclaimed dogs; rabies inoculation requirements for animals other than dogs. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye, except Mr. Hamel voting no. Mr. Hamel said he was still firmly convinced that a license fee of $9.50 was too high. Council Bill No. 953 - Amending City Code re: Dog Control, read the first time on November 10, 1975, was brought back and read the second time as amended by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill as amended be ap- proved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, except Councilman Hamel voting no, the bill was de- clared passed and numbered 17472. II - Extension of Water Service, Shade Oak Subdivision Councilman Murray raised the question of time factor with regard to Boundary Com- mission decision to extend water service to the Shade Oak Subdivision. He said it. I was his understanding the issue now goes to the Eugene Water & Electric Board for final decision. Manager said that as a result of the Boundary Commission action, he had written to the EWEB general manager reiterating the Council's policy state- e ment and expressed the hope that the Water Board would not grant the extension. There being no further business, and upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned to Monday, November 24, 1975, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber. &-a~ )~ Charles T. Henry City Manager - 11/12/75 - 5 1;11