Loading...
Minutes - 02/19/2008SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING /WORKSHOP MINUTES FEBRUARY 19, 2008 TAPE READING 0001 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, FEBRUARY 19, 2008. CONVENED. The special meeting convened at 6:33 p.m. with Mayor Figley presiding. 0010 ROLL CALL. Mayor Figley Present Councilor Bjelland Present Councilor Cox Present Councilor Lonergan Present Councilor McCallum Present Councilor Nichols Present Councilor Sifuentez Present (6:37 pm) Staff Present: City Administrator Brown, City Attorney Shields, Police Chief Russell, Asst. City Administrator Stevens, Community Development Director Allen, Police Captain Tennant, City Recorder Tennant 0025 CITY ADMINISTRATOR RECRUITMENT. Mayor Figley stated that this special meeting was called in the event the Council elected to take some formal action, however, her main purpose for this meeting is to receive an update from the City Administrator on the status of the Request for Proposal (RFP) process for a recruitment firm, the approximate time line in getting responses back from potential firms, when the Council could act on the RFP's, and what the Council may want to do in the meantime. City Administrator Brown stated that the RFP's were distributed last Wednesday afternoon to 6 private consulting firms and to the League of Oregon Cities. Based on the discussion at the last Council meeting, the RFP's were broken up into 2 parts with the primary thrust being what it will take to do a recruitment for a new Administrator and the second part, which is an alternative, would tell the City how the firm would go about, and cost for, an Interim Administrator whether it be afull-time or part-time position. He stated that the League of Oregon Cities was included in the mix since they have a better idea as to who might be available in Oregon for doing interim City Manager work. The turnaround time for submitting proposals is March 7"'. If it is needed, some interviewing of firms can be done as well as background checking on those firms that are most qualified and the City has reserved the right to make a straight selection of a firm to do the work. He anticipates that it will take 3 months of work from the time the firm is hired to get the initial process in place and it could take 6 months before a selection is made on a candidate. He stated that discussions have taken place regarding a current staff member filling the interim position, specifically Chief Russell, but the Chief has some issues dealing with his certification and PERS impacts if he were to take on this interim position on an extended basis such as 6 months. He recommended that the Council not Page 1 -Special Council Meeting /Workshop Minutes, February 19, 2008 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING /WORKSHOP MINUTES FEBRUARY 19, 2008 TAPE READING make any choices at this meeting regarding the interim position and wait until the proposals are received before any decision is made. Mayor Figley stated that the Council will know how many responses to the RFP's have been received by the first meeting in March and the Council may want to consider appointing the Chief as Interim City Administrator for a period of time long enough to get an outside interim on board if that was the Council's decision. Administrator Brown briefly reviewed issues faced by Chief Russell if he were to be appointed for an extended time period and the only way he could preserve his PERS service credits is to be both Police Chief and Interim City Administrator which is asking a lot of the of Chief with taking on a new assignment and his wanting to get the police facility finished within the next few months. He suggested that the week of March 17`~ be kept open for a potential special meeting at which time the Council would appoint an Interim City Administrator as well as appointing a firm for the recruiting job. 249 Mayor stated that the concern is that the last time the City had an interim there were some very poor decisions made and if an interim is hired, it is absolutely critical that the interim be on the shortest possible leash. Councilor Bjelland questioned if the City could offer the recruiting portion to one firm and the interim portion to another firm. Administrator Brown stated that the Council would have the flexibility in handling it in that manner. Councilor McCallum stated that he feels comfortable with the direction being taken since there is some flexibility in how a decision is arrived at by the Council. Administrator Brown stated that the list of firms receiving the RFP's is significantly shorter than what has been used in the past based on previous experience, however, he felt that the firms receiving proposals have the capability of servicing an Oregon city and will do the best work for the City. 337 AD.TOURNMENT INTO COUNCIL WORKSHOP ON CHANGES TO THE ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE. NICHOLS/LONERGAN.. adjourn into a Council workshop. The motion passed unanimously. At 6:47 p.m., the Council convened into the workshop session. 380 Mayor Figley stated that this draft ordinance had been distributed to the Council over a month ago and, due to the complexity of the issue, it was determined that the discussion on the draft be done in a less structured environment. City Attorney Shields reiterated that the Council is not in a public hearing and the process followed can be determined by the Mayor, however, staff is prepared to provide a brief overview of the written information provided in the agenda packet. 478 Councilor Cox referred to Section 15 (Keeping of Dog pursuant to Court Order Permitted) and questioned the meaning of this section since Sections 1 lthrough 14 Page 2 -Special Council Meeting /Workshop Minutes, February 19, 2008 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING /WORKSHOP MINUTES FEBRUARY 19, 2008 TAPE READING defines different levels of dangerous dog penalties based on how dangerous the dog is. City Attorney Shields stated that there was a concern raised by the Police Department in the event that a dangerous dog has gone through a classification process and then the court issues an order putting parameters on the dog. The intent of Sectionl5 is to say that an owner could keep a dog that had engaged in an unlawful behavior provided that it had gone through the process and the court had issued an order that would allow the owner to keep the dog. Councilor Cox then referred to Section 17 (Disposition of Leve14 Dangerous Dog Cases; Disposition Hearing) and questioned how Section 15 adds anything that is already in Section 17. City Attorney Shields stated that Section 17 talks about the most dangerous dogs (Level 4) which has caused serious injury to a human or has killed a cat or a dog. This section addresses the disposition of a dog in this category whereas the intent of Section 15 is that if a dog is allowed to go back to the owner and has restrictions, then it can be kept by the owner pursuant to the court order. Police Chief Russell stated that the Municipal Judge rules on the level of dog based upon the ordinance provisions and once that level has been established, the dog is at that level forever. If dog is at a particular level and is kept by the owner without a court order, then the owner is in violation of the ordinance. Section 15 would allow a dog at any Level to be kept by the owner as long as a court order is in place and as long as the terms of the order are met by the owner. Councilor Cox questioned if there was any provision that defines any penalties in the event the conditions of the court order are violated. Police Chief Russell stated that his interpretation of the draft ordinance would be that the dog is not being kept lawfully pursuant to the court order, therefore, the owner would be keeping a Level 1 through 4 dog and would then be in violation of the ordinance. Councilor Bjelland referred to Section 16 (Disposition of Dangerous Dog Cases) in that item 2 requires an owner to keep the dog in a secure enclosure and confine the dog whenever it is not on a leash. He suggested this Section goes counter to Section 13 which says that it is unlawful for a person to keep a Leve13 dog. 0677 Attorney Shields stated that Section 16 outlines what the Court can order for any Level 1, 2, or 3 dog and if the court does impose the a specific order in addition to the penalty, then this would be where Section 15 would be applied. He mentioned that this ordinance not only has a potential for a fine but it does allow the court to secure and/or confine a dog in an appropriate case. He also mentioned that the Judge is aware of the draft ordinance being reviewed by the Council and has seen previous drafts of this document in an effort to obtain any comments she may have on the proposed ordinance. Councilor Bjelland suggested that Section 10(A) (Classification of Dogs by Municipal Judge) include language that the judge not only classify dangerous dogs but also stipulate that the judge can then determine the disposition of the dogs. Attorney Shields felt that the ordinance already addresses the disposition since Section 10 deals with classification of dogs and different levels while Section 16 addresses what the Judge can do in terms of addressing dangerous dogs. Section 17 specifically addresses a Page 3 -Special Council Meeting /Workshop Minutes, February 19, 2008 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING /WORKSHOP MINUTES FEBRUARY 19, 2008 TAPE READING level 4 dog and requires an extra disposition hearing before a final decision is made by the Judge. 0826 At 7:03 p.m., Mayor Figley requested that staff provide a brief overview on proposed changes to the animal ordinance. Attorney Shields stated that the City has gone through a public process on this draft ordinance and have noticed this meeting to give the public an opportunity to express their views to the Council. He stated that the current ordinance is very old and has been amended periodically over the years but has never been fully reviewed to bring it up to date. He stated that the ordinance consists of a legal component, an operational component, and a policy making component. Staff has tried to make some decisions relating to policy but the Council will make the final decisions which will be reflected in an adopted ordinance. For example, under state law, the Council has the authority to completely prohibit the keeping of wildlife and exotic animals and based on previously received feedback from the Council, the draft ordinance includes a section that would prohibit the keeping of these animals. Within Section 4, a policy decision will need to be made on limiting chickens or ducks since there was an issue that was previously addressed by the Council. Another issue had been brought up by the Council previously in that the ordinance prohibits livestock but fowl is included in livestock. However, fowl is undefined and, even though it is undefined under State law, the Council could still define fowl. In Section 2(A)(8) relating to constrictor snakes, he agreed with Councilor Cox that the language should refer to length rather than size and some further discussion should be held on this issue before a final ordinance is considered by the Council. In regards to issues addressed by state criminal law, he stated staff tried not to put those issues in the draft ordinance since staff would operationally address it through the criminal law. As mentioned earlier, the Municipal Judge makes the decision on classifying the level of the dog. In extreme cases, a special disposition hearing for due process is provided and if the dog has been found by the Judge to be classed as level 4, disposition options are euthanizing the dog, ordering that the dog be sent to a secure animal shelter at the owner's expense, or the dog be removed from the City under a specific process outlined in the ordinance. 1 I79 Police Chief Russell stated that public notice process involved sending out notices of upcoming Council review of the draft ordinance and staff did receive some requests for copies of the draft ordinances. Some public comments were received regarding chickens and ducks in that some residents did not want to see those animals allowed in the City. Dangerous dogs is of most concern since there have been cases involving these animals and, even though the current ordinance works, it is antiquated and needs to be updated to deal with cases in a fair manner. There is not a lot of state statute dealing with vicious animals and it is left to the local authorities to address. In his opinion, this ordinance addresses operational concerns and gives the City the tools it needs to protect the public and to help good animal owners follow the law. Councilor Cox stated that this ordinance has been briefly discussed in the past and, in earlier discussions, it was his recollection that there were conflicts between the current Page 4 -Special Council Meeting /Workshop Minutes, February 19, 2008 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING /WORKSHOP MINUTES FEBRUARY 19, 2008 TAPE READING animal ordinance and some provisions of the community development ordinance such as chickens. Attorney Shields stated that there were some issues raised since there are parts of the Woodburn Development Ordinance that address uses in terms of animals. Councilor Cox questioned if a new ordinance is adopted if an amendment to the Woodburn Development Ordinance would be required to eliminate the conflict. Attorney Shields expressed his opinion that adoption of this ordinance would eliminate most of the conflict. For example, this ordinance would prohibit livestock on the property when it is annexed to the City. Staff will be looking closely at the development ordinance to deal with any conflicts that may arise. Community Development Director Allen stated that the Woodburn Development Ordinance allows farm use except livestock and he does not feel that this ordinance will cause any problem with the development ordinance as it is written. Councilor Cox stated that the general law relating to the keeping of animals does not belong in the Woodburn Development Ordinance but there may need to be a provision in the development ordinance to deal with newly annexed property. Councilor Bjelland questioned the definition of livestock and his reading of the language makes it unclear as to whether an animal that is not bred for commercial purposes and is a pet can be kept by an owner even though it is on the livestock list of animals. Attorney Shields stated that the definition is out of the state law, however, some change can be made to the definition to make it more clearer. 1445 Under Section 2 (Keeping of Certain Animals Prohibited), Councilor Cox mentioned that snakes that are allowed must be kept in enclosures indoors and this ordinance should prohibit boa constrictors, pythons, and anacondas that have a maximum length at maturity of a specified size. However, there are other large snakes such as a bull snake that would acceptable but under the draft ordinance would be prohibited. He felt that one way of addressing this issue is to have language that would have the length of any snake over 5 feet long or any boa constrictor, python, or anaconda. This would allow residents to have a pet snake that is not specifically prohibited in the ordinance. Councilor McCallum stated that the Livability Task Force had looked at potential revisions to the current ordinance several years ago and snakes were at the top of their list of an animal to prohibit. 1566 Barbara Cannon stated that she had read the draft ordinance and complimented staff on how well-written the draft ordinance is, however, she did suggest that puppies and kittens should not be given away in public places. She stated that adopting an animal is a long term commitment but a spur of the moment decision to take an animal that is being given awary for free may result in the animal not being properly cared for. Tamara Deere also thanked the staff who wrote the draft ordinance and stated that she is a committed dog owner and shows her animal at competitions. After reading the draft, she did not feel that she would be losing any of her rights and appreciated the allowance of chickens and ducks provided that these animals are not causing any problems. She questioned if there was a possibility of a grandfather clause for those individuals who Page 5 -Special Council Meeting /Workshop Minutes, February 19, 2008 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING /WORKSHOP MINUTES FEBRUARY 19, 2008 TAPE READING currently have animals on the property that are not causing a nuisance but would be prohibited under the ordinance if it is adopted. Nadean Cox questioned if a chain linked fence serving as a security enclosure needs to be padlocked. Attorney Shields stated that this ordinance addresses apro-active process where the Judge can classify a dog's behavior. If you have a good dog and you keep your dog on your property there is no requirement to padlock your fence. If your dog would get into trouble and the Judge would issue a court order, then the secured enclosure would be dependent upon what is included in the court order. Ms Cox also stated that her dog is about the size of a Beagle and sometimes she feels fearful for walking her dog since there are so many larger dogs and is concerned not only for her dog but for herself. Mayor Figley reminded the public that there are laws on the books that prohibit animals running at large and she also has a problem with unleashed dogs that act aggressive. 1785 Herb Mittmann stated that their Homeowners Association will be talking about animals at large in their area and he wanted to make sure that they are consistent with what the City is proposing. He had been confronted by two pitbulls the other night and felt that it was time to let the owners know that pets are appreciated but they need to take care of their animals just like they do their children. In Section 5 (Duties of Animal Keepers), leashes are 30 feet or longer and animals will go over private property and leave their excrement or solid waste deposited on private property. The animal owner does not pick up the solid waste leaving it for the property owner to take care of. In his opinion, the animal owner should be required to pick up the solid waste that is deposited on private property rather than just requiring the removal of the solid waste from public property as stated in the draft ordinance. He also stated that they have the front yard of one lot in their neighborhood that has not been cleaned for 4 months and the solid waste is piled up and, even though the neighbors can mention the problem and request that it be cleaned up for health reasons, the property owner still does not clean up the animal's solid waste. He reiterated that the issue of allowing animals to run on private property even though they are on a leash and the removal of solid waste need to be discussed further before the ordinance is adopted. He also questioned where within the ordinance are the fines outlined based on the level of violation. Councilor Cox stated that the ordinance does provide for penalties based on the type of violation whether it be a Class 1, 2, 3, or 4 civil infraction and the dollar amount assessed with the civil infraction class level is adopted within a different City ordinance. Since the City has multiple ordinances with class levels 1 through 4 as penalties, it is easier for the City to adopt one ordinance that would adjust the fines of each class level as needed. City Attorney Shields stated that the lowest fine within this ordinance would be $125 and animals with behavior problems will be more expensive. The court does have some discretion as to how much is levied as a fine. Chief Russell stated that he would provide Mr. Mittmann with a copy of the ordinance listing the fines for each civil infraction level. Councilor McCallum questioned if there was some guideline used by the Police Page 6 -Special Council Meeting /Workshop Minutes, February 19, 2008 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING /WORKSHOP MINUTES FEBRUARY 19, 2008 TAPE READING Department to determine when a barking dog violation occurs. In some cases a dog will bark periodically for a few minutes but it is the consistency that creates a problem for the neighbors. Chief Russell stated that the draft ordinance provides more direct and reasonable language to determine a barking dog violation. The City also has the ability to go back and claim that it is an on-going continuous problem which should fall under the Noise Ordinance instead. 2079 Mayor read a letter from John and Teresa Timmons objecting to keeping chickens or ducks within the City due to the damage they due to neighboring properties if the chickens or ducks run loose. Councilor Nichols questioned if a dog howling is classified the same as dog barking. Mayor Figley stated that it was her recollection that there were a number of identical terms such as barking, howling, and braying within the draft document. Councilor Nichols questioned as to what was considered as public areas since there are churches, parks, and other open ground areas that are used by the public. Attorney Shields stated that there was no definition for public areas in the draft document and he will see what can be done to define this area. In a case where there is excrement (solid waste) in a front yard and it is odorous within the neighborhood, it may be a violation under the Nuisance Ordinance. Councilor Cox agreed that an animal owner should be required under this ordinance to remove excrement if it is on private property of someone other than the animal owner. It was the consensus of the Council to include language in the ordinance on excrement removal on private property and public areas. Councilor Bjelland questioned the impact of a violation under this ordinance. Attorney Shields stated that under the ordinance the normal process is the issuance of a citation into Municipal Court. Councilor Cox questioned if there was anything in this ordinance or in the Civil Infraction ordinance that increases the mandatory penalty for repeat offenders. Attorney Shields stated that this ordinance does not have a provision that would increase the mandatory penalty. The Court prefers to have the civil infraction amount set high enough so that there is some discretion by the Judge on the fine levied and, with repeat offenders, the Judge takes a harder look at the fine to be levied. Police Chief Russell stated that his department has asked the City Attorney's office to appear in court and represent the department on repeat cases. 2335 Councilor Cox felt that, overall, the ordinance is a good document but needs some fine- tuning. One policy decision within this ordinance that has caused him to hesitate a little pertains to running at large. When he walks his dog, it is almost always on a leash, however, there are times when he takes his dog off of the leash close to his home as part of a training exercise. If this ordinances passes as it is currently written, taking the dog off the leash will be illegal. Another option available to the Council would be for the animal to be under the control of the owner at all times but there are situations that Page 7 -Special Council Meeting /Workshop Minutes, February 19, 2008 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING /WORKSHOP MINUTES FEBRUARY 19, 2008 TAPE READING control is lost fairly quickly. Councilor McCallum expressed concern that small dogs can do as much harm as a large dog and the leash will keep a dog under the owner's control. Attorney Shields stated that the animal ordinance prior to 1996 did have a voice command provision but then the ordinance adopted in 1996 went to requiring a leash. 2554 Councilor Cox briefly reviewed, and offered his opinions, on the following suggestions: 1) In regards to prohibiting animals being given away in public, he could go either way on this issue; and 2) In regards to a grandfather clause allowing existing non-conforming uses, he would not be in favor of including this provision since there will always be a question as to how long that animal has been at that property. Councilor McCallum stated that he has received many complaints on chickens and fowl and does not want to see these animals allowed in the ordinance since their noise is a problem. In the past he has questioned why cats are not included in the ordinance and, to date, there is still no answer to this issue. In the case of a dog's solid waste, owners need to carry some type of device or plastic wrap to pick up the excrement. Overall, he was pleased with the draft ordinance. 2678 Councilor Cox expressed his opinion that a limited number of chickens be allowed provided that they are kept in an enclosure and the owners do not have roosters. Attorney Shields stated that he could draft language that would require chickens to be kept in enclosures, however, the at-large provision in the draft ordinance would apply to any animal in the City. Councilor McCallum stated that he would prefer to allow neither ducks or chickens but if anything is allowed it would be the limited number of chickens. 2872 A N M ATTEST Page 8 -Special Council Meeting /Workshop Minutes, February 19, 2008 City of Woodburn, Oregon