Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/09/2005 Adjourned Meeting 222:. CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 9, 2005 - 7:30 A.M. - 9:00 A.M. YAKIMA CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. Roll Call Present: Council: Mayor Paul George, presiding, Council Members Ron Bonlender, Dave Edler, Neil McClure, Mary Place, and Susan Whitman Staff: Dick Zais, City Manager; Doug Maples, Code and Planning Manager; Joe Caruso, Supervising Code Inspector; Ben Zigan and Diane Seymour, Animal Control Officers; Jeff Cutter, Assistant City Attorney; and City Clerk Roberts Also: Pat McDonald, Union Gap Council Member, and Alan Landvoy, Humane Society of Central Washington Absent: Council Member Bernard Sims (excused) Mayor George called the meeting to order, after which staff and committee members introduced themselves. 2. Study Session on animal control regionalization and review of draft ordinance • Committee Members Give Overview of Ordinance Council Member Place, chair of the Animal Control Committee (Mary Place, Susan Whitman, and Pat McDonald), advised that the Committee decided, if they were to have any success with regional animal control enforcement, the different jurisdictions would need to have the same rules and regulations, with the exception of those unique to the jurisdiction, i.e. the County does not have a leash law. They patterned the ordinance after Yakima County's because the City's animal control ordinances are scattered in different chapters. The ordinance does not address the pit bull ban in the city but focuses on the unacceptable behavior of dogs in addition to protecting working dogs. Pat McDonald and Council Member Whitman agreed with Council Member Place's summation of the Committee's conclusions at this time. Ms. McDonald stated she would like to see an agreement between the jurisdictions, thus, having the same rules would be critical. Council Member Place referenced the inter - office memo, commenting that some of the items are in the ordinance, but some are policy changes Yakima will need to address. AUGUST 9, 2005 — ADJOURNED MEETING 223 :. The policy issues are: • Move the animal control function to the Police Department; currently they are under Code Administration. • Authorize the Animal Control Officers to insert microchips in the field; the • County wants to do this especially for dangerous dogs. • Create a universal database — if the information about a dog that has been • chipped is not recorded somewhere, it does no good. • Council Discussion — Transfer Function to Police Department • Council members requested information about the advantages of transferring the Animal Control function to the Police Department. One advantage mentioned would be a closer relationship with the police with whom they already work cooperatively when an animal control call warrants such assistance. • Council Discussion — Restricting Location of Livestock Council also discussed Section 6.20.47 (proposed ordinance), which restricts the maintenance of livestock in the downtown core area of the city. Council Member Place explained that this section has been in place since 1920 and the Committee did not want to remove it without Council review, nor did they want to suggest a boundary within which livestock would be prohibited. It was pointed out that other sections of the Municipal Code place restrictions on where certain animals may be located. Council considered most residents would not expect, nor want, livestock in their urban neighborhood settings, but there might be a different expectation from residents who have horses on property that was annexed. Past practice is that horses on property that was annexed to the City would be permitted. Ms. McDonald said they talked about the idea of property that did not perpetually have animals on it losing the grandfathered status. It was the consensus that the Committee would review this item further. • Council Discussion — Animal Control License Fees Joe Caruso reviewed the fee schedule on page 5 of the proposed ordinance: A one - year license for dogs that have been spayed or neutered would cost $15; and $12 for each renewal, or $33 for a three -year license. For intact dogs, the fee would be $30 for one year, $25 for renewal, or $70 for a three -year license. There would be no fee associated with a license for a working dog, a dog whose owner is disabled and uses the dog as a support dog, nor for a City Police or Fire Department working dog. New in the ordinance for the City of Yakima is a discounted fee for senior citizens. Spayed or neutered dogs owned by persons over 62 years of age may be licensed for $25 which would be valid for the life of the dog but is not transferable. Council Member Bonlender thought the license fees were too high and suggested a fee of $10 and $5 for spayed or neutered dogs commenting that this could result in a higher number of licensed dogs. He did some research on the Internet and found that 80% of the dogs in San Francisco are unlicensed, and their fee is set at $25. He asked what is the purpose of the license fee? City Manager Zais replied that it generates revenue to offset some of the costs for animal control services, which are subsidized by the General Fund. Doug Maples advised that we have a total budget of about $230,000 for Animal Control and collect $35,000 in dog license revenue. 2 224 AUGUST 9, 2005 — ADJOURNED MEETING Another change in the ordinance that Council Member Place pointed out was, in the past, we had a fine for people who did not get a dog license by March. That was removed. She said discussions brought out that Union Gap would have a problem with the higher fee and the County says they will have a high fee. Although the fees could be different, they would like to have the same rules and regulations. • Impounded Dogs Mayor George asked what happens when an unlicensed dog is taken to the shelter and does not have a chip? Mr. Landvoy said they take them in. After 48 hours, if the dog is not redeemed, it becomes their property and disposition of the animal is staff's decision. In 2004 between 6400 and 6500 animals (dogs and cats) came into the Shelter. They adopted as many as they could, with others being transferred to the Seattle and Tacoma areas to be adopted. Adoption costs vary between $70 and $80, plus the dog owner must purchase a dog license, if applicable. In addition, they are charged a $2 agent fee ($3 in the new ordinance). If the owner is redeeming the dog, they must pay the boarding fee ($10 per day) and impound fee ($20 City of Yakima), in addition to the license, if the dog is not already licensed. Officer Zigan explained that for a level 1 offense (an average dog that strayed off property) they would pay a $20 impound fee, and license and agent fees, under the existing ordinance.. Under the proposed ordinance, the dog is taken to the shelter where it would be micro - chipped for a fee of $25. Council Member Place interjected that we want that chipped information put into a database that is $15 or more if we use the national database. Officer Zigan continued, stating that a level 2 violation would involve a second impound fee of $40, and for a third impound, the fee would be $60. He reported that the Shelter chips all dogs brought in from Union Gap. The City does not have the equipment to chip the dog, but we do have the ability to scan the chips. We want the ability to chip dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs at the scene. Mr. Allen and Officer Zigan spoke about the drawback of using the national database. It,relies on the dog owner registering with them and the information is not available on weekends or after - hours. Council Woman McDonald stated Union Gap contracts their animal control coverage with the Shelter. They had emphasis patrols on weekends and evenings to address people who let their dogs out then. On a regional level, our own database would work well; however, from the point of view of dogs coming in from other areas, based on cost, we should look at a national database to be able to identify dogs from all over. Mayor George said that if we chip animals, we need to have that information available. At the request of Council Member McClure, Officer Zigan explained that under the State's dangerous dog statutes, (which is what we have put in our ordinance) a potentially dangerous dog is one that, when unprovoked, menaces a person on a public street or sidewalk. Or, it is in the yard but lunges at the fence when someone walks by, or chases a kid on his bike but doesn't bite him. If the dog does it again, it is declared dangerous and is impounded. They would then have to keep the dog behind a six -foot fence with a warning sign and have $250,000 worth of liability 3 AUGUST 9, 2005 — ADJOURNED MEETING 225 insurance. They have the right to appeal that declaration. In the current ordinance under menacing dogs, the fine for jumping at pedestrians is $250. Officer Zigan said that an animal control officer can issue both criminal and civil infractions and warrants. • City of Yakima Animal Control Supervision . Council Member Bonlender asked how the Animal Control Officers and Code Administration Manager feel about moving the animal control function to the Police Department (PD). Would it be advantageous or better serve the community? Joe Caruso said that it was just something that was done in the County and was brought up for consideration here. We are trying to be more effective in our operation. Officer Zigan commented that if connected with PD, they would probably have a closer working relationship with them and would be more aware of certain houses where • they should take additional precautions when making contact with the occupant. Doug Maples stated that the Code and Planning Divisions are customer oriented divisions. We respond to complaints as timely as we can, working closely with the • Police Department. He doesn't see any advantage of transferring this function to the Police Department; we won't gain any further information that we don't have now. The only advantage the County had when they transferred this function to the Sheriff's Office was that they dedicated one person to survey residents for licenses. His position is that we have done very well handling the 800 calls per month we receive. Chief Granato commented that the deputy testified that his role in the Sheriff's Office is to enforce the license program they have. Basically it is a revenue operation for the County. He also doesn't see what value would be gained to have animal control. It would mean having to train officers and supervisors on animal control laws because they would be supervising and backing them up. • Council Member Whitman said it is important to keep our animal control officers and dogs safe. They are out there enforcing the law and may not know the history of the . area. For this reason she is in favor of the transfer, not that it isn't working now, but it needs to go one step further. The police officers need to know the rules and support the animal control officers. Chief Granato responded that they have direct radio communication with the animal control officers and they could ask about action at a particular address with regard to violence or weapons. The police officers should be, and are, required to know about animal control ordinances, but it is not their primary area of responsibility. Council Member Place asked if Code Administration staff would be available to back up' the animal control officers if we extend the service hours'or do emphasis patrols. Mr. Maples said they have worked with the Fire and Police Departments in many aspects outside of animal control, and have worked with PD on some of their emphasis patrols. 4 226 . • AUGUST 9, 2005 — ADJOURNED MEETING 3. Audience Comments (8:45 a.m. — 9:00 a.m.) • Sally Mayo said she uses a service dog. In the course of her job she walks a lot, and makes a lot of dog complaints. She expressed concern that Council would consider this a budget hindrance. She thinks there should be four or five animal control officers, not three. When she calls Animal Control she is told they will respond within 24 hours. If she calls the Police Department, they fuss at her because they have other responsibilities. Where do we draw the line at safety? She reported she has had dogs jump out of moving vehicles to attack her and her dog. We have more blind and other people using service dogs who need to be able to get out into the community. Mayor George assured her that we are very concerned about issues that relate to her and other service dog users. This ordinance needs to be strong and meaningful to get a handle on animal control issues and make sure we create responsible pet owners. He stated that money is an issue, but should not be the overriding issue of whether this ordinance should be passed. Ms. Mayo stated she thinks the fines should be high because it does not deter people unless it is. 4. Adjournment • Council Directions Council Member Place stated they would take all of the comments into consideration . and work on changes, probably before going to Union Gap. The Committee will work on a confinement area for animals, look at fines, and investigate the database process. EDLER MOVED AND McCLURE SECONDED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:07 A.M. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote; Sims absent. • READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY Ti - COUNCIL EMBER DATE l-Tmss` C UN I MBER DATE ATTEST: • s•' (', -,, CITY CLERK PAUL P. GEORGE, MAYOR Minutes prepared by Karen Roberts. An audio and video tape of this meeting are available in the City Clerk's Office 5