Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-03-29 Government Operations Committee Minutes Government Operations Committee March 29, 2011 Minutes Councilors: Blanchette, Palmer, Gratwick, Longo, Bronson, Hawes Staff: Conlow, Farrar, Arno, Yardley, Willette, Dubois Others: Joe Dahl, Dan Hansen, Mr. & Mrs. Schmersal, Phil Roberts 1. Request to Apply for up to $2,000 from the Maine Bureau of Highway Safety for Increased Seatbelt Enforcement Efforts Deputy Chief Arno stated that each year the State of Maine Bureau of Highway Safety makes grant funds available to assist law enforcement agencies with a variety of traffic safety related functions. The Police Department would like to apply for up to $2,000 in grant funds to cover additional seatbelt enforcement, and the grant dollars would be used to reimburse the Police Department for overtime costs associated with additional seatbelt enforcement efforts. A motion was made and seconded to approve staff’s request. The vote was unanimous. A Council Order will be placed on the upcoming City Council agenda. 2. Request to Apply for a $124,249 Grant from the US Department of Health and Human Services to Implement the Drug Free Communities Support Program Health and Community Services Director Yardley said that the US Department of Health and Human Services has funding available for the Drug Free Communities Support Program, which was established to create and strengthen collaborative efforts to prevent and reduce substance abuse among youth. The funds will be used in 8 of the 12 communities in the Healthy Maine Partnership region. The proposed Order will authorize the City to apply for the grant, as has been done previously. Responding to Blanchette, Yardley said the grant monies would allow additional resources to work with schools on underage drinking and prescription drugs, to work with area law enforcement to support their efforts, to provide collaborative efforts around public education and intervention, and it would provide staffing to support those efforts. In response to Bronson, Yardley said the communities included are part of the Healthy Maine Partnership region. Bangor is not specifically listed as the Bangor School Department has made the decision not to participate in the alcohol use survey. Bangor will serve the Bangor community but not through the School Department. Bronson asked if the other communities bring anything to the table. Yardley said the communities are partners and bring their resources, police and school folks that are willing to allow access to the schools and to work with them. Yardley said this is an opportunity for Bangor to receive the funding, to serve Bangor residents and, because of the nature of the grant, enhance the opportunity to receive the grant by agreeing to serve the surrounding area. It does not involve Bangor taxpayer dollars. The more grants received the less the City pays for Yardley’s salary. A motion was made and seconded to approve staff’s recommendation with unanimous Committee approval. An Order will be placed on the upcoming City Council agenda. 3. Request from Maine Air National Guard (MEARNG) for Parks and Recreation to Assist with Providing Childcare Services During Yellow Ribbon Programs Parks and Recreation Director Willette noted that the MEARNG would like to contract with the Parks and Recreation Department to provide childcare services during Yellow Ribbon programs, which are workshops for returning soldiers and their families. Childcare is provided in order to allow soldiers to attend these workshops with their spouses, while leaving their children cared for nearby. Parks and Recreation has available staff to assist with this request and would be fully reimbursed for all staff costs involved with the service. The childcare service would be provided at the Guard’s North Hildreth Street Reserve Center. A motion was made and seconded to approve staff’s recommendation. The vote was unanimous. 4. Proposed Amendment to Chapter 65 of the City Code, Animals, to Include Provisions Relating to Kennels (Kennel Ordinance) PUBLIC HEARING Assistant City Solicitor Nicklas noted that in early March the Government Operations Committee had a lengthy discussion concerning various issues related to kennels. At the conclusion of the meeting, staff was directed to prepare a draft Kennel Ordinance, with input from kennel owners and interested parties, and for the proposed Ordinance to return for Committee consideration. Nicklas said the draft ordinance complements State Law. It applies to kennels that are kept for the purposes for breeding, hunting, show, training, field trials, sledding competition or exhibition purposes. Said purposes are outlined as a kennel under State Law. State Law has separate provisions for boarding kennels and for breeding kennels. Breeding kennels are dealt with both by the City and the State; boarding kennels are only by the state. The revisions to the barking dog ordinance are intended to give dog owners and police some additional specific standards about whether ordinances have been violated. From a legal perspective, the current ordinance is fine but a bit vague. The intention is to give both the dog owners and police clarification of what rises to the level of a barking dog violation. The new kennel ordinance would require owners to apply for kennel licenses, would make those licenses go through the same approval from City department procedures used in other licensing contexts, and undergo an inspection. Inspections are required by State Law. It would provide further criteria as to the inspection. It puts a limit of 30 dogs per kennel although it does allow existing facilities a couple of years to come into compliance. It includes provisions for denial, suspension and revocation of kennel licenses. There is a provision for escalating fines in the enforcement section. Bronson asked if the barking dog section applies only to licensed kennels or a citywide ordinance. Nicklas said it is a citywide ordinance. Responding to Bronson, Nicklas said there is a reason for ‘animal’ and not just ‘dog’ in the proposed language. It does not define animals anywhere. Bronson then spoke about Section 65-15 d and the number of licenses limited and felt was unclear as written; i.e. number of licenses per applicant, per location, or citywide. Nicklas said it is defined by property. Nicklas said it could be changed to lot or parcel. Regarding a commercial kennel and in response to Bronson, Nicklas said under the proposed ordinance you would be able to have no more than three kennel licenses. Nicklas said the current structure is for every 10 dogs a kennel license is needed. One can have more than one kennel license. Under the proposed ordinance, the number of kennel licenses declines over time and eventually no more than three would be allowed. Nicklas will obtain more information regarding the commercial viability of kennels depending on the number of dogs. Bronson and Nicklas talked about the suspension piece. Any kennel would need to transport dogs as a matter of the kennel operation. Bronson said it seems that one would have to relicense even if going out of business just to transport the dogs off site. Nicklas said that is a suspension as opposed to a revocation. Nicklas said a suspension contemplates a license being given back at some point. Bronson suggested that the wording be clarified. Joe Dahl, 220 Church Road, spoke of the draft ordinance as being positive. He felt the ordinance language was very restrictive in the time limit on barking. He wanted to be certain that roaming dogs were included in the language and he had spoken with Nicklas about it earlier. Nicklas noted there is a current ordinance for dogs running at large (Sec 65-2). There is also a State Law dealing with it. Nicklas said there is a section (65-5c) regarding a written warning for a barking dog. Responding to Gratwick, Dahl suggested that perhaps a 5-minute limit for a barking dog and also to lengthen the 20 minutes. Don Hanson, 1653 Union Street, expressed his concern about the barking dog time limit agreeing with Dahl about the relatively short timeframe. He suggested looking at a decibel level and the amount of sound. Bronson commented about the need for a noise ordinance. Gratwick said there is a noise ordinance in place and talked about it as related to downtown pubs. Nicklas said the problem with a general noise ordinance is that it is extremely difficult and often decibel levels do not necessarily coincide with the things that people get upset about. It’s not an easy issue. Hanson said that it needs to be measured objectively. Blanchette agreed. Longo felt that ‘animal’ would be a more suitable term rather than just a ‘dog’. In response to Bronson referencing page 27 of the proposed ordinance, Nicklas said he would review it in terms of clarification. Patti Schmersal, 534 Pushaw Road, spoke about the barking dog section of the proposed ordinance. As a breeding kennel operator, she has different issues to consider. State Law mandates that her dogs have to be out daily, two times a day, 20 minutes per dog to exercise and play, and they bark. There is no way she can be in compliance with State Law while trying to be in compliance with City law as proposed. The definition of kennel in the ordinance refers to the MRSA, which is based on female dogs only. She has two breeds. In order to keep open bloodlines, she has to maintain 6 males. Under the breeding kennel ordinance which would limit the number to 30 at any point in time, it will place restraints that will affect the dogs as well as the kennel owners. As far as the care of the dogs goes, as a breeder it is one of her major concerns. Her northern breeders are meant to be outside, not enclosed. Their kennel is on Pushaw because it was zoned for them. The City set distance laws and the Schmersal’s have gone way beyond that in order to protect their neighbors. The City needs to look at the various breeds of dogs as not all dogs are the same. The 30 second rule is a problem for her. She mentioned their ongoing neighbor dispute. She spoke about the language restricting a dog’s shelter to 3 sides and a roof. A dog needs four sides and a roof. She feels the proposed ordinance places an unfair restriction on her business. She spoke about the various City inspections. They are accustomed to having the State and the Animal Control Officer inspect. She expressed a concern with letting a police officer into her home. She noted that they originally had 30 sled dogs and now have 6 and they are trying to re-home the remaining six. Nicklas asked Schmersal what limit she would suggest for the number of dogs. She thinks that 5 would be reasonable. 25 dogs per person on a property should be easily handled. Referring to the State definition of kennel, Nicklas said the particular definition is for 5 or more dogs or wolf hybrids kept in a single location under one ownership for breeding, hunting, show, training, field dogs, sledding, competition or exhibition purposes. The sale or exchange of one litter of puppies within a 12 month period alone does not constitute the operation of a kennel. Schmersal thought it had been revised to five intact breeding females. Nicklas said he will look at it again. Nicklas spoke of confusion regarding the suspension versus revocation indicating that he needs to clarify that language to some extent. Responding to Longo, Schmersal said there is no training required for a kennel operator. She has talked to the State about this thinking there should be something available on-line for kennel operators. Longo said that 25 per person is too general. The City can have ordinances that are more restrictive than the State statute, but the City cannot specifically separate out breeds. With respect to the barking dog ordinance, Nicklas asked if the Committee had any particular direction. Another point raised was the closing in of dogs. Nicklas understood there is a debate as to whether certain breeds should be enclosed at night. Under the ordinance as drafted, dogs would have to be placed inside at night. He will do additional research in this area. Responding to Gratwick, Arno said the draft ordinance provides objectivity that might somewhat aloof in the current Ordinance. It brings the City more in step with State regulations and statutes. Much of this is based on reasonableness which varies in different locations and different situations. In terms of the time limit on barking dogs and perhaps lengthening out the time, from an enforcement standpoint it will require an officer to stay longer to witness whatever the behavior is on which they are taking action. He agreed with the portion of the ordinance that would require a warning to be first given. Blanchette and Palmer spoke about the decibel level concept. Blanchette asked Nicklas to contact Dr. Frazier at the State level on the impact of housing for sled dogs and malamutes. Bronson felt that the next difficulty would be clarification of the sanitary and health portion of the proposed Ordinance and who would be the arbitrator. Adjourned at 6:15 pm.