Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/07/2002 Work Session . City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2002 The city of Springfield council met in work session in the Jesse Maine Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, October 7, at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken, Councilors Ballew, Fitch, Hatfield (via conference call), Lundberg, Ralston and Simmons. Also present were City Manager Michael Kelly, Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Joe Leahy, Administrative Coordinator Julie Wilson and members of the staff. 1. Animal Control Services. Police Chief Jerry Smith presented the staff report on this issue. Captain Lewis was also in attendance. Council is asked to review the methodology of providing animal control services, if restored. Council is also being asked if the city should reaffIrm elimination of animal . control services, restore the service or contract for such services. . As a result of budget reductions, the Police Department recommended the elimination of animal control services and the Bu,dget Committee eliminated these services in the FY 03 budget. As anticipated, the city has received numerous complaints as a product of no longer providing these services, mostly revolving around dogs-at-large and barking dogs. The Police Department continues to respond to vicious and injured dog complaints as a public safety issue. : Staff presented three primary options available: Option 1 - the City could restore rinimal control services at a net cost of approximately $72,000. Chief Smith explained that this is ~ot a complete restoration of animal control services that previously existed. Previously, the city had one full-time clerk and a part-time animal control officer. When that was no longer ~vailable, the part time clerk was only performing animal control duties half-time. The remainder of the time the clerk performed call-taking and police records services. Restoration of the program, as noted in the AlS briefing memo, recommends restoration of a full-ttme animal control officer, and requires that person to also perform record keeping and complaint preparation, previously performed by another person. The cost of this service would net but at approximately $70,000. I Option 2 - The city could contract with Lane County Animal Regulation Authority for approximately $70,000. This option does not include $2,000-3,000 costs that the Police Department will experience for veterinarian bills and equipment included in the fIrst option. . Chief Smith explained that there is a $30,000 shelter cost that is included in the $70,000 cost estimate. This would be for an allocated 20 hours per-week. Chief Smith said he spoke with Work Session Meeting Minutes October 7, 2002 Page 2 . the Director of Lane County Animal Regulation Authority, Mike Wellington. Mr. ~ Wellington provided the figure of $66,500, not $70,000 noted in this option. Chief Smith said in addition to the $66,500 amount, they would also request complete discretion on the calls that are received, how they respond, and when they respond. Anything outside the 20 hours per week would be charged in addition to the contract. The contract we have now provides the city the opportunity to call Lane County if there is a problem we are not able to handle. The city has previously called Lane County for assistance approximately once per month (e.g., to respond to a vicious dog). Chief Smith noted that the cost estimate for this option is only an estimatelbaseline figure. Option 3 - A conclusion could be reached that the fmancial constraints require that the city not consider re-establishing animal control services. This would not preclude citizens from filing civil litigation against an offending party. Chief Smith explained that Option 3 was to leave the program as is, and reaffIrm that animal control services are no longer a part of our basic serviceslbudget and that the city will not provide this service. . Chief Smith referenced the agenda item summary report, Attachment 1 - Page 2" last paragraph. "It appears from our initial research that it appears doubtfuL" Chief Smith said that staffhas conducted additional research on this matter. He said the city could provide Lane County with consent to execute Lane County ordinances within the city limits. In other words, Lane County codes would be enforced within the city of Springfield city limits. Chief Smith again clarified that the city would need to provide Lane County with written consent related to this issue. Chief Smith said staff did not know if Lane County would be willing to provide these services or not. Chief Smith reviewed pros and cons of the various options. Option 1 -Maintain some level of control over program cost. The disadvantage is that we cut the program last year due to the fact this is the lowest priority police service, from the city's perspective. Option 2 - If the city does outsource animal control services, we would have no control over the contract cost. We anticipate the service cost will increase. The contract agency would also want complete control of the program. There will be additional costs that the city will be liable for, over and above the initial contract amount. Chief Smith said staff is spending much time trying to resolve animal control complaints/issues for citizens. Staff is attempting to resolve appropriate complaints without sending officers out in the field to respond. This method of processing does not always result in good customer satisfaction. Again, staff is still spending resources dealing with animal control issues. If the city does contract with Lane County, we will continue to have citizens contact the city for assistance when they are not satisfied with Lane County support. . Work Session Meeting Minutes October 7, 2002 Page 3 . Option 3 - This option reaffirms that the program has been eliminated. This is a step toward balancing the city budget. The downside of this option is that it does not solve the animal control problem. Chief Smith responded to questions from Councilor Ballew. He briefly discussed civil remedies available to. citizens, through Circuit Court,. Councilor Ballew said our current situation is unpleasant, although, program elimination/reduction is a step toward addressing budget constraints. Chief Smith said Lane County could enforce County Codes, with written consent from the city of Springfield. Springfield would initially need to take action to eliminate existing city of Springfield code language to. allow enforcement of the County Code. City Attorney Joe Leahy discussed Lane County dog control codes/language issues. He said the city could provide Lane County with consent to enforce County Codes within our city limits. He said the county could also opt to revise their existing ordinance to limit implementation / enforcement of their code with specific restrictions (e.g., not applicable to cities with population of 30,000 or more, etc.). Joe Leahy discussed home rule issues related to Lane County's code. Chief Smith and Captain Lewis provided information regarding the number of calls received during 2000: . . 277 Barking dogs . 91 Animal bites . 91 Vicious dogs . 121 Injured animals . 85 Animal abuse . 381 Dogs at large . 219 Pound/picked up . 125 Miscellaneous Chief Smith explained that if the city restore staffing for animal control services, the individual would perform animal control functions as well as provide other support to the Police Department. City Manager Mike Kelly provided a summary of previous council discussion held regarding this subject. Mike Kelly said council is being asked to determine if animal control is a basic service the city will continue to provide, or if we should eliminate the service in order to balance our General Fund. Councilor Simmons presented a new Option (4) as follows: . 1. Repeal our current animal control ordinahce. 2. Provide Lane County with written consent to enforce County regulations within the city limits of Springfield. 3. Do not contract with the County for pound service. Cancel the pound contract for retaining animals. Under state statute and county code, they are required to provide safe pound services. Work Session Meeting Minutes October 7, 2002 Page 4 . 4. Authorize the county to renew and continue the animal control license program. 5. Councilor Simmons referenced a letter from Judge Sinclair, included in the agenda item summary packet. 6. Provide an information/fact sheet that is available as a handout to citizens. This information sheet will outline services and procedures related to animal control services offered through Lane County. Councilor Simmons said the County did not establish a district, they merely opted out of the state language and utilized county language. He suggested folks review the information from Judge Sinclair (Attachment 2 of the agenda item summary report). Councilor Fitch said she might support Option 3, slightly modified. She said we should review the animal control program at the same time we review budget reductions. At that time, we could also evaluate funding. She suggested this discussion occur with Budget Committee members present. She said we may not have the money to fund this but we need to further research the issue before making a final decision. Discussion was held regarding potential use of money from a company that may not qualify for Enterprise Zone exemptions as previously expected. This additional revenue might be able to help fund the animal control program. Councilor Simmons said if company does not qualify [now] for Enterprise Zone benefits but qualifies under the state, the money would need to be paid back. He did not think we could count on use of this money. . After lengthy discussion, it was requested that staff look into exemptions regarding retroactivity of Enterprise Zone benefits for companies. Councilor Fitch supported a modified Option 3. She referenced the number of calls received regarding animal control and said the citizens may feel this service is a necessary basic service. Citizens may opt to fund this service. Since the organization is facing financial constraints, she would like this issue reviewed again, hand-in-hand, with review of the overall budget/financial horizon, sometime in January or whenever further review occurs regarding the budget. She said during this review, we might be able to identify some funding for the program. She said animal control service is probably not as high a priority service as responding to burglary, break-ins, etc. We do need to review this along with the Budget Committee members present. Councilor Simmons further discussed the company/Enterprise Zone issues, etc. He said if the referenced company files state action and the company does qualify for the "over $25 M" category, they could recover that money. He said we will have spent money (funding the program) and may need to be refunded to the investing corporation. He said the money may not be available to the city in January. Bob Duey said he received a report explaining that if the company does not qualify for year one, there could be no repayment of the money from year one. Once they do not qualify for year one, there is no retroactive payment. Year two and three could be different. . Councilor Simmons requested that the City Attorney provide a legal opinion regarding right-of- recovery. . Work Session Meeting Minutes October 7, 2002 Page 5 . Councilor Fitch said we should not "add-back" the animal control program at this time, since funding is not available. This subject does warrant further review. Councilor Lundberg discussed the difficulty we wouid have monitoring hours dedicated to the City of Springfield by Lane County. There is no mechanism to define how we use our 20 hours allocated for animal control services. It'.s also difficult to determine how many hours exceed the base 20 hour allotment. The group further discussed this issue in detail and discussed hours that have previously been billed to the City of Springfield. Councilor Ballew said there is support for the animal control program, although, we do not have funding to support the program. She was ready to support Option 4, suggested by Councilor Simmons. She said we don't have other options. Mayor Leiken said during the last council goal setting session, the group recognized that we are facing financial constraints. He said we have pending ballot measures. The outcome of the levy will more clearly define the level of services the city will be able to provide. He said he would like to wait until after the election to make a decision on this issue. If citizens are willing to support basic services, we might be able to further consider alternate funding. Councilor Hatfield further discussed alternate funding and legal issues related to this issue. Councilor Simmons said if we do nothing, we will continue to pay a monthly fee for Lane County Services. . . City Attorney Joe Leahy will contact Lane County and initiate Oialogue with them. He will inquire about their position related to providing animal control services. Chief Smith will provide information regarding city of Eugene budget amounts allocated for animal control services. A decision regarding restoring or reaffIrming (Animal Control) program elimination will be made in the near future. . ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Minutes Recorder - Julie Wilson . ~~ Kim Krebs City Recorder