Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-02-15 Government Operations Committee Minutes Government Operations Committee February 15, 2011 Minutes Councilors: Blanchette, Palmer, Gratwick, Longo, Bronson, Hawes Staff: Nicklas, Farrar, Arno, Conlow, Pinkham, Dubois, Yardley Others: Chris Frazier, State; Mr. and Mrs. Roberts, Mr. Hanson 1. Discussion and Review of the City Ordinance and State Regulations regarding Kennel operations Nicklas noted that the purpose of this discussion was to review the City’s existing Ordinance regarding kennels and applicable state law, review the relationship between the City and State regarding licensing and enforcement action and to solicit input from Kennel operations or other interested parties regarding Kennel issues or concerns. Kennel owners, representatives from the state, City staff and interested citizens were notified and invited to attend. Nicklas provided background of current state and city regulations. State law covers much of kennel operations and the State issues boarding kennel licenses and breeding kennel licenses. The City issues a completely separate license, which is also mandated by the State, and it is for breeding kennels, show, hunting, sled, training and basically any use that is not a boarding kennel. The State regulations cover certain things required by a municipality in terms of kennel inspections. The City is allowed to put more stringent regulations in place. It cannot, however, loosen State regulations. Kennels are only mentioned in the Land Development Code of City Ordinances dealing with zoning. It states that kennels are allowed in a conditional use in RR&A Districts. The City could create a kennel ordinance that expands upon what the City currently does under State law. Nicklas cautioned that the City would need to respect the due process rights of the currently existing kennels, whether boarding kennels should be included, and what other dog related laws are in place with the State and the City. Gratwick asked if the distinction between boarding and breeding is purely arbitrary. Nicklas said the requirements and operations of breeding and boarding kennels would be different. Boarding kennels involve individuals bringing their dogs in for a certain amount of time; breeding kennels involved the raising of dogs. Chris Frazier, representing the State, addressed the Committee. Frazier said that the State licenses any animal facility (pet shops, breeding kennels, boarding kennels, animal shelters). The breeding kennel license and the municipal kennel license may intersect depending on the number of animals involved. Currently, the State’s number is 5 or more intact females or breeding more than 16 puppies in a year. A municipal license would be for 4 or more females for breeding but 5 or more would require a State license as well. She spoke about the State laws being somewhat convoluted. Longo asked what originally put this item on the Committee’s agenda. Nicklas noted that the purpose of the meeting is to see the best way of creating a good municipal ordinance, if necessary. There have been issues with one particular kennel in the past but staff wants to look at this issue as a whole rather than concentrating on any particular kennel. Responding to Longo, Arno said there is a problem with a particular kennel operation. Palmer asked if the current regulations have teeth. Nicklas said the problem is there is not a local ordinance at this time. The State has laws to govern kennels but in some instances it is not explicit. Palmer asked the number of complaints received and what percentage of resolution is reached both at the State and City level. Arno said in one particular case it certainly is more than a once in a while issue for the Police Department. The current laws and ordinances are all typically civil violations: barking dogs, roaming at large dogs, dangerous dogs. He noted that the City would like to be more in step with the State. If the State were to suspend a breeder’s license, there should be an Ordinance in place stating that if a kennel license is suspended then the City should not issue a permit. Frazier thinks the State has good facility and licensing rules in place but they are vague in terms of interpretation and enforcement of the rules. The State’s goal is to tighten up the rulemaking process. Responding to Palmer, Frazer referred to a 2007 incident in Buxton involving a kennel with 249 dogs. Palmer asked if Frazer is comfortable with the enforcement that the State has in place, is it appropriate, and does the State come in at the right time. Frazer said it is all considered on an individual basis. She feels that the State is very consistent in its actions and has been successful. Arno noted that Dr. Frazer and her group have been very responsive to Bangor’s calls and requests for assistance. Bronson said that his understanding is that there is City process for a City permit to operate a kennel. Bronson assumed the City has denied permits in the past. He asked if the City is on good ground to make that denial. Gratwick said he is hoping that the problems are aired today, and that this should return to the Legal Department, the Police Department and the State to figure out a better way to come up with a working solution. He spoke about the inordinate amount of time spent on the specific situation. Blanchette agreed with Gratwick stating that the intent of the committee is not to create a hardship to legitimate kennels. She noted that the specific kennel being discussed has caused problems, and it has intimidated the neighbors. The State and City rules do not interlock and that needs to be addressed to find a workable solution. Blanchette commended Animal Control Officer Pinkham. Frazer stated that the State is more than willing to work with the City. Responding to Blanchette about a timeframe, Nicklas said the first steps have already been taking in terms of good provisions in a municipal ordinance to supplement the State law; i.e. procedure for licensing kennels, what happens with violations, the barking dog ordinance, limiting the number of kennel licenses per property. Within the next 4-6 weeks, Nicklas feels that a recommended ordinance should be ready for the committee and the Council to consider. Blanchette noted that all affected individuals need to meet with the committee before any recommended changes are brought to the Council level. She suggested that this come back to the Committee by the end of March. She also suggested that a public hearing be advertised for this meeting. Joe Doll, kennel owner on Church Road, volunteered to work with the City if appropriate. Donald Hanson, owner of Green Acres Kennel on Union Street, would like to part of the process. Phil Roberts, neighbor of the kennel under consideration, spoke about the problem with barking dogs. He spoke about the dogs being placed inside at night to assist with the problem. He also spoke about the problem with roaming dogs. He spoke about his loss of ducks, chickens and sheep because of roaming dogs from the kennel. He provided specific incidents and noted that fines were placed against the kennel owner. He would like to see barking dogs required to be placed in an enclosed building at night. Concerning loose dogs, he suggested an escalating fine scale for habitual offenders as compared to private dog owners. Terri Roberts, neighbor of the kennel under consideration, indicated her desire to be part of the working progress towards reaching a resolution. She spoke of specific incidents. Responding to Blanchette, Pinkham spoke about the dog/pig incident referenced by Terri Roberts. Longo asked if all animal rules and regulations should be reviewed as well. Hanson agreed with Longo. He spoke about additional assistance for the City’s Animal Control Officer. It would make a difference and be a good place to start. 2. City Council Notification Procedure for Special Council Meetings. One of the recent City Charter amendments requires that the City Council adopt a revised procedure for providing notice to Councilors regarding Special City Council meetings. Dubois referred to the November 2011 election at which several City Charter amendments were included and all were passed by the voters. One of the amendments required that the method of notification for Special Council Meetings would be established by Council Resolve. She asked the Committee for direction in this area. Current and past practice has been to deliver the notices in hand or at the residence of each Council Member within 24-hours of the special meeting. She felt it might be more efficient to allow other mechanisms of communication to be acceptable forms of notice: email, voice mail, texting. The recipient would need to acknowledge that the notice had been received. Longo suggested that there might need to be a paper trail associated with a phone call. Palmer noted that the current method of notification is archaic. Bronson and Hawes agreed with a needed change. Gratwick said that cell phone and home phone numbers need to be available. Blanchette noted there was a Committee consensus to recommend approval as outlined by staff in the memorandum. Dubois will work with the Legal Department to draft an ordinance. Longo suggested using Facebook and Twitter. 3. Council Resolve 11-079. Accepting and Appropriating $77,376 in Grant Funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in Support of the Shelter Plus Care Program Yardley said that the City annually applies for funding for several homeless programs under the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Homeless Continuum of Care. The Committee recommended approval of the Resolve which will accept and appropriate $77,376 in HUD funds for the City’s Shelter Plus Care Program which won initial funding in 1993. The Shelter Plus Care Program provides subsidized rents for qualified homeless individuals with a primary diagnosis of mental illness, substance abuse, or HIV related illness and who are receiving support services. The item was on thth the February 14 Council Agenda for First Reading. It will return to the February 28 Council agenda for final action. 4. Authorizing the Application for a $66,740 grant from the Maine Department of Health and Human Services for Woman and Children’s Preventive Health Services Program (Public Health Nursing) Staff is requesting authorization to apply for this grant, which will allow for the continuation of maternal and child health programs in the City. It is a three-year grant at $66,740 per year. Yardley noted that this is a continuation grant to support maternal and child health programs in the City of Bangor. The grant is specific for Bangor residents. The contract period is July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2014. The item was th approved by the Committee and will go to the February 28 Council agenda for final action. Adjournment: 6:15 pm.