Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-05-10 Government Operations Committee Minutes Government Operations Committee May 10, 2011 Minutes Council: Blanchette, Longo, Palmer, Gratwick, Bronson, Hawes Staff: Conlow, Farrar, Arno, Yardley, Dubois Committee Chair Blanchette asked Councilor Longo chair the meeting. 1. Resolve 11-147: Accepting and Appropriating $296,404 in Grant Funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development – Shelter Plus Care Renewal Yardley explained that this is renewal funding for the Shelter Plus Care Program, which has been in place since 1993. The program is used to provide subsidized rents for qualified homeless individuals with a primary diagnosis of mental illness, chronic substance abuse or HIV related illness and are receiving support services. The grant will support 40 housing units. A motion was made and seconded to approve staff’s recommendation. Responding to Bronson, Yardley said there are around 120 separate rentals involved. To Gratwick, Yardley said the need is greater than that number. Community Health and Counseling is a local administrative agency for State Shelter Plus Care funding so there are more units in Bangor beyond what Bangor’s administers. The advantage for the City is that it allows individuals who are otherwise eligible for General Assistance to obtain housing and it costs the City less through General Assistance because the individuals only pay 30% of their income. Because the rest of the state is administered through DHHS, there is a state court decision that does not allow the state to dictate an individual to receive case management services a condition of receiving housing. The City encourages it strongly even though it cannot make it a requirement. The vote was unanimous. 2. Proposed Amendment to Chapter 65 of the City Code, Animals, to Include Provisions Relating to Kennels (Kennel Ordinance) At the March 29, 2011 meeting, Nicklas noted that the Committee held a public hearing and received the initial draft of a proposed Kennel Ordinance. Interested parties and kennel operators were invited to attend and offer comments and input on the proposal. Following this review, staff was asked to take the input into consideration and make appropriation revisions. Nicklas distributed a copy of the revised draft along with the current animal ordinance. The number of dogs allowed per kennel has been increased from 30 to 40. The revised draft contains language dealing differently with barking dog during the daytime. If a dog barked for 15 minutes or more and did not fall silent for more than 1 minute, it would be in violation of the ordinance. He noted that the suspension and revocation language was made clearer. An additional standard was added to define adequate staffing to care for the animals. Bronson spoke about Article 4, Sec 65.17 d. Responding, Nicklas quoted ‘can’t be transported from the property without written permission from the Animal Control Officer or other authorized representative of the City’. Bronson said that ‘until the license has been reinstated’ appears to be a condition upon which the authorized agent of the City can authorize such transport. Nicklas said he will try to rephrase the sentence to clarify. Bronson said it seems appropriate to drop the condition of reinstatement to transport the animals. Gratwick agreed. Bronson was under the impression that this exercise is in response to some who were aggrieved with a particular kennel operation. He also was under the impression that the current ordinance was either ineffective or unenforceable. If the proposed draft ordinance is adopted, Bronson asked if it will be enforceable at the City level. Nicklas said the City does not have a current kennel ordinance. The City follows State law but it cannot enforce State law. The draft is something that City would be able to enforce. Responding to Gratwick, Nicklas said that State law determines that boarding kennels are going to be licensed only by the State, breeding kennels will be licensed by both the State and the municipality, and all other kennels are licensed only by the municipality. Regarding barking dogs, Gratwick asked about recordings or other more efficient ways of using police department resources. Arno said that a recording would be workable. The police department is trying to meet the burden of proof to show in court in order to prevail in any case. Gratwick asked why there are six different department approvals required. Nicklas said those six departments are required in order to approve all business licenses. Gratwick said there is no mention of loose dogs. Nicklas referred to Sec 65-2 which deals with dogs running at large. Longo invited members of the public to speak. Phil Roberts, 530 Pushaw Road, thanked the City for its effort in the proposed ordinance. He spoke of issues living next to a breeding kennel since 1999. He referred to information he received from the State’s Animal Welfare Department. The subject kennel has been under quarantine since January 2010 and it may have been lifted recently but, in the meantime, he has had loose dogs in his yard, chicken house, and back pasture with the sheep. He spoke of the number of sick puppies being sold. He spoke of the risk and the responsibility of kennel owners. Regarding barking dogs being kept inside from 10 pm to 6 am, he asked if that time period could be increased. Patty Schmersal, 534 Pushaw Road, responded to Roberts’ comments, indicating that there was a quarantine placed on December 20, 2010 for a specific parasite which does not pass from dog to human, and they are no longer under quarantine. She noted there is a lot of silence at her property. Her dogs are not constant barkers. She has been working on decreasing the number of dogs especially the Alaskan sled dogs, out of concern for the neighbors. She said that it is a neighbor issue and went into some detail. She has a right to live where she wants to live. She commended Nicklas for his work on the ordinance relating to the breeding kennels. Regarding the barking dog language, she agreed it is much better but still being approached from a one size fits all standpoint. If two dogs are barking for 15 minutes, it can be easily controlled. She spoke about feeding and exercise time relating to the operation of a kennel twenty minutes per dog, twice a day. It takes her four hours each feeding. She said there should be a difference from what is accepted in a residential neighborhood and what is accepted in a place where kennels are zoned. Her property does not have City water and sewer and wondered how the draft ordinance would affect areas outside of the City utility limit. Nicklas said if one is on City water and sewer that approval would be necessary. Schmersal stated that she strongly feels that it is wrong to assume that because they own kennels that they are criminals and should not have to let a police officer into their home or onto the premises without just cause. The ordinance forces them to give up their civil rights. She spoke about her sled dogs and training needs. The 10 pm to 6 am time frame does not work for sled dogs. Nicklas said the State definition for their purposes for a breeding kennel is 5 or more adult female dogs. The City’s is 5 or more dogs or wolf hybrids kept in a single location under one ownership for breeding, trial dogs, etc. Regarding sled dogs, he contacted the State Veterinarian and was told that, while the breed might not mean the dogs need to be outside all of the time, the idea is to keep them acclimated to outdoors. It could be an issue with dogs for sledding purposes. Schmersal expressed concern about the 30 day limit to place dogs as related to denial or revocation of a license. She said it has taken about 5 months to place 24 dogs. She asked that the Council weigh very carefully the ordinance. Laws should not be made to satisfy one neighbor at the detriment of making things more difficult for kennel owners and runners in the City. Terri Roberts, 530 Pushaw Road, addressed the Committee indicating that this situation is not a neighborhood issue. She referred to reports issued by the State going back to 2008 relating to the kennel. She noted that the kennel is being operated without a state or City license. Over the years, she has had as many as 50 dogs at large as well as 6-8 horses and donkeys from the Schmersal’s property onto her property. She spoke of the quarantine and of numerous calls to the Bangor Police Department. Referring to the draft ordinance, she does not think the number of licenses should be raised. She is concerned about her animals, her piece of mind, and with the City. Responding to Roberts, Arno said he thinks from a number of ways in looking at this situation that he can see no evidence that the Roberts are over-exaggerating the situation. Gratwick said the City is trying to draft an overall kennel ordinance to satisfy many different kinds of kennels. There is no question with the issue relating to a particular kennel but feels that it not in the Council’s hands. Good rules and regulations for the larger City will be helpful, and the City needs to make sure that these new rules work for this particular situation. Joe Dahl, 220 Church Road, said that the area is zoned for kennels and at times he has over 14-15 dogs. He does close the dogs in nightly. He is concerned about the barking dog enforcement and the 20 minute time limit. Bronson said he is in agreement with Gratwick in that the City is not attempting to arbitrate a single issue but to write an ordinance that will be useful Citywide. He wondered if the City needs to make a provision in the proposed ordinance such that if someone has a sled dog team do they need the ability for the dogs to be outside in colder weather. If so, should that capacity be limited based on distance from other properties and/or size of the property. Bronson stated that this item needs to be moved on to full the City Council. Gratwick seconded the motion. Nicklas said if there is a desire to make other provisions for sled dogs in particular. No provision could be made regarding the breed. Nicklas asked if there are any further changes that need to be made before the draft ordinance goes to the City Council for first reading. Bronson noted the need to revise the dog transporting issue and the sled dog issue. Patty Schmersal stated that she felt like she was attacked this evening and felt the need to respond. She noted that a police officer came to her house about 10 days ago in response to a complaint of one of her dogs on the Roberts’ property. She asked Arno if he recalled receiving a phone call from Mr. Schmersal regarding it. Arno did recall it. The female dog in question was in a crate inside of the Schmersal home. She disagreed with Arno’s statement that the Roberts were not over-exaggerating. Schmersal said she is going to court for another incident during which her dogs were not on the Roberts’ property. Longo stated that the desire of the Committee is not to make it a neighbor issue but to discuss the proposed ordinance. Longo respectfully asked Mrs. Schmersal if she had further comments relating to the ordinance. Schmersal said that the sled dog issue needs to be worked on. She apologized for bringing up the other issue but felt strongly about it. For the future, Bronson asked if the City would be the appellate body for situations like this. If the ordinance is violated, Nicklas said there would be enforcement provisions as listed at the end of the document. For there to be a conviction under the ordinance, it would need to go to court for a determination. A license denial or revocation would also be appealed to Superior Court. Don Hanson, 1653 Union Street, encouraged the city to look at the dog running at large ordinance. The current enforcement structure and fine is not particularly discouraging because of the number of repeat offenders. As part of the new ordinance, Nicklas said there is an escalating fine structure that did not exist previously. Staff could revisit that particular section either as part of this draft or see how the new ordinance works, and then revisit Hanson’s concern later if necessary. The Committee concurred with revisiting later, if necessary. Adjourned at 6:10 pm.