June 29, 2004
The Board of Commissioners of the City of Lawrence met in regular session at 6:35 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Rundle presiding and members Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, and Schauner present.
Mayor Rundle recognized the Douglas County Memorial of Honor. The event would take place Saturday, July 3, 2004, at 10:30 a.m. This memorial recognized the extraordinary sacrifices of over 430 ordinary citizens, men and women of Douglas County, who gave their lives to preserve freedom for this community.
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of June 22, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to receive the Hospital Board meeting minutes of May 19, 2004; the Neighborhood Resources Advisory Committee meeting minutes of May 27, 2004; the Task Force on Homeless Services meeting minutes of April 30, 2004; the Planning Commission meeting minutes of April 28, 2004; the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting minutes of May 6, 2004; the Sign Code Board of Appeals meeting minutes of May 6, 2004; and the Historic Resources Commission Action Summary of May 20, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve claims to 281 vendors in the amount of $1,403,705.02 and payroll from June 13, 2004 to June 26, 2004 in the amount of $1,430,703.17. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for Rick’s Place, 846 Illinois, Ste: F; KOKORO, 601 Kasold, Ste: D102 & 103; and the Taxicab License for Matada Manjunath, 2600 West 6th, Ste: K-10. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and appoint Sue Hack, David Schauner, Maria Martin, Judy Billings, Aimee Polson, Cindy Maude, Kelvin Heck, John Pendleton, Barbara Clark, Emily Miller, and Jere Jost, to the Farmers Market Task Force; and appoint Carol Bowen to the Traffic Safety Commission which will expire April 30, 2007. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Commission reviewed the bids for the Chip and Seal Program, Street Improvements for the Public Works Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Engineer’s Estimate $76,098.75
Vance Brothers, Inc. $62,146.58
Hi-Plains Sand, Inc. $80,524.05
APAC-Kansas, Inc. $106,222.14
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to award the bid to Vance Brothers, Inc., in the amount of $62,146.58. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
Charter Ordinance No. 37, relating to trial proceedings in Lawrence Municipal Court, exempting the City from K.S.A, 12.4501, (pertaining to the Kansas Code of Procedure for Municipal Courts) and adopting substitute provisions in place thereof, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner to adopt the Charter Ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve the recommendation from the Public Transit Advisory Committee to allow K-12 students and Haskell Indian Nations University students to ride the “T” for half-fare. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve the recommendation from Public Transit Advisory Committee to designate up to ten free fixed route free ridership days per calendar year. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Shirley Connett, 2001 Massachusetts. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Rebekah Senger, 3243 Glacier Drive. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
REGULAR AGENDA
Receive funding request from the Sister Cities Advisory Board.
Graham Kreicker, Chair, Sister Cities Advisory Board, presented the request. He said this was the 15th Anniversary of the Sister City relationship with the City of Eutin and nearing the 15th anniversary of the relationship with Hiratsuka, Japan.
He said Sister Cities Advisory Board sent local students, parents, and citizens to tour our Sister Cities. He said there was no cost to the taxpayers of Lawrence because it was supported by contributions to the Lawrence Sister Cities Advisory Board and by parents, students, and citizens making those trips.
He said those Sister Cities did not hesitate to spend money to host our delegates.
He said the Advisory Board was planning to host an event in this community for 36 residents from Eutin, Germany, and 50 residents from Hiratsuka, Japan. He said the Advisory Board was asking the citizens of Lawrence as well as members of their Board who wished to attend this event to pay their own way. The event would take place September 18, 2004.
He said the Sister Cities Advisory Board was asking for a contribution from the City of $5,000, to cover some of those costs to host this event.
Commissioner Schauner asked the cost of the tickets for the general public who wished to attend the event.
Kreicker said $25.00 per person.
Mayor Rundle said both he and Commissioner Hack had been on the receiving end for the hospitality provided by both Eutin and Hiratsuka. He said the $5,000 contribution from the City was a modest request. He said if the City of Lawrence was going to be committed to the Sister Cities program, it was important for the City to come forward whenever there was a need.
Vice Mayor Highberger said he strongly supported the celebration, but his only concern was that the Board did not use the money to subsidize meals and entertainment for local people and it appeared from Kreicker’s comments and information that that would not be the case.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to approve a $5,000 midyear funding request from the Sister Cities Advisory Board. (7)
Receive request from Hillcrest, Old West Lawrence, and Pinckney Neighborhood Association for a land use area plan with the general borders of 6th Street, California Street, Michigan Street, and 7th Street.
Emily Hill presented the request. She noted a change to the border area. She said they were asking for an area plan from 5th to 7th Street, Alabama to California.
Sean Williams, President of the Hillcrest Neighborhood Association, presented concerns from his association. He said their concern was the future of the 6th Street Corridor which had brought three different neighborhoods together, the Pinckney, Hillcrest, and Old West Lawrence neighborhoods. He said they were concerned that the City did not recognize the importance of this area. He said with the growth of West Lawrence this area was increasingly the gateway into downtown from the interstate and the dominate arterial connector between West Lawrence and downtown. Yet because it straddled the neighborhood it had fallen through the cracks of neighborhood advocacy and City planning.
He said they were concerned that there was a less than optimal plan for this area. This area was a mismatch of different incompatible zonings dating from over 50 years ago when 7th Street was a conduit to Topeka as a main highway. The time and growth of Lawrence had left those zonings behind. He said this was a neighborhood in transition. Over the next ten to twenty years a significant amount of real estate between Iowa and Alabama, 5th and 7th Streets was likely to change hands and could be redeveloped. He said this was also a vulnerable neighborhood because there was no specific plan for that area.
He said given those circumstances, we as a City needed to be pro-active and plan for change rather than react piecemeal to development as it was proposed. Therefore, they were asking the City Commission for three things:
1. Commission an area plan for that corridor;
2. Place a moratorium on any current site plan in that area that would involve the construction of new buildings;
3. Devote the resources necessary to expedite the plan and complete the plan as soon as possible to minimize the inconvenience to the property owners.
He said their neighborhoods were realistic and they embraced the diversity of their neighborhoods and this corridor. They supported multi-family housing, commercial property, and infill development, but they knew that in order to support such a diverse combination of residents, owners, and uses, they needed a coherent plan that took all Lawrence residents into consideration. He said experience made them realistic and showed them that they needed an area plan that had the power and vision to guide this critical corridor into the future.
He said the Hillcrest neighborhood had expressed their concerns about the increase of traffic, density of population, and the aesthetics to the City of Lawrence. He said the neighborhood wanted a plan to ensure the minimization of traffic on local side streets and the improvement of neighborhood streets in safety, enhancement and preservation of historic sites and resources, ensure an effective transition between high and low density development that would preserve the integrity of their neighborhoods, and ensure infill development that was compatible and consistent with the character of the existing neighborhood, ensured the attraction and retention of neighborhood friendly and local businesses, pedestrian friendly streets, and welcoming aesthetics for Lawrence citizens and visitors.
He said in order to minimize the inconvenience to property owners, they were asking the City to devote the resources necessary to expedite this process. He said their neighborhoods were extremely committed to the idea of an area plan and would be willing to provide the input necessary to ensure its timely completion.
John Pepperdine, President of the Pinckney Neighborhood Association, expressed the concerns of his neighborhood association. He said Pinckney area had a mixture of different types of zonings. He said if believing in urban planning and concepts, he asked if they could plan out better. He said his neighborhood was supporting the area plan request because the 6th Street corridor was an interesting area in the Pinckney neighborhood that lacked attention. He said this area plan was a good idea to look into to give the neighborhood a guideline for this plan.
Hill said development could often occur unplanned and piecemeal on the fringes of neighborhoods and the fringes of all three of their neighborhoods had been neglected for the last 25 to 30 years.
She said plans had been made for other parts of the City, but their area was critical for the City of Lawrence and was an anchor for three neighborhoods. She asked why their neighborhoods in conjunction with the City Planners couldn’t come up with a set of guidelines for a neighborhood that was at a critical turning point.
She also noted there was a site plan coming before the City Commission next week for a lot at 7th and Wisconsin. She said there had not been a report written by planning staff concerning that site plan and their neighborhood would not have time to review and comment on their report in time for Commission discussion. She said their neighborhoods strongly believed that a moratorium was needed on site development plans for new development if that area plan was to have meaning. She said moratorium or no moratorium, they would like to comment on Planning Staff’s report.
Vice Mayor Highberger asked why the neighborhood chose those boundaries.
Hill said those boundaries kept expanding. She said this issue began with Hillcrest and Old West Lawrence had been concerned about their neighborhood, 7th Street from Alabama west. She said Hillcrest and Old West Lawrence had similar issues and it made a lot of sense to address both neighborhoods.
Mike Goans, Co-President, Old West Lawrence Neighborhood Association, spoke to the eastern portion of the area. He said 600 blocks of Alabama, Maine, and Missouri Streets, were a strategic interest to Old West Lawrence and the City. He said those blocks contained numerous, small, affordable, and single-family homes most of which were well maintained. Those vintage modest homes could be scrapped off at any time because those homes were zoned either multi-family or commercial. Those structures were used in single-family homes and the zoning did not match the historic or the current use of those homes.
He said there were 19 homes in the 600 blocks of Alabama, Maine, and Missouri Streets which were single-family homes zoned multi-family or commercial. He said the same scenario existed in that targeted area, the Pinckney neighborhood. He said if affordable housing was a concern in Lawrence, there needed to be a plan in place that would save the endangered commodity.
Bill Mitchell supported the request. He said he did not understand why his neighborhood, West Hills, was not out in force, for a plan and against proposed apartment developments.
He said he had sent many letters to the Planning Department regarding single-family residential development in the inner city. He said this proposal seemed to be a long overdue small step in the right direction. He said planners had shown some concern over drainage, visual buffers for parking, and light overflow, but no concern for non-abutting upstream recipients of the flood of traffic with its noise, litter, and endangering residents.
Linda Finger, Planning Director, presented the City Commission with a list of planning staff’s projects. She asked for City Commission direction on those projects.
Mayor Rundle said there needed to be a timeframe on the request for a moratorium if that was the Commission’s direction.
Finger said she did not have a timeframe because of staffing and their workload. She said 120 days was reasonable, but staff could not commit to that timeframe.
Commissioner Schauner said, given those circumstances, what was a reasonable timeline.
Finger said a comfortable timeline was one year.
Commissioner Dunfield said since Planning was short one staff member, he suggested using that salary to hire a consultant to take on this project.
Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said staff was hoping to have a planner hired by August, but that same person would need to work on the same workload as the other planners.
He said the North of North Street Plan was dependent upon the work of Chad Voigt, Stormwater Engineer, and that was factored into that process.
He said if the City Commission felt that a consultant could help, staff could look into those costs.
Commissioner Dunfield said the creation of an area plan was a different issue, but it seemed there were some parallels and similarities. He said there was going to be a significant amount of that effort which was a matter of getting the neighborhood associations and their representatives together and talking about issues. He said it seemed there were people who could take on some of that issue.
Commissioner Hack said there were four different area plans and that included the North of North Street Plan. She said there were some borderline fragile areas and perhaps staff needed to look into hiring a consultant to help free up staff.
She said this was an area that the City needed to be pro-active in because of the in-fill development which created difficult situations.
Mayor Rundle asked Finger how long it might take if someone was hired to address this issue.
Finger said if one person was hired to work on this issue, the 120 days was a reasonable timeframe, but if there was substantial disagreement it might take a longer. She said staff could work on the four month timeframe.
Commissioner Dunfield said this was a worthwhile project that in fact some of the property directly bordering 6th Street was probably underutilized. He said the appearance and functioning of that area could actually be improved by redeveloping that area in a way that in some places might be more dense, rather than less dense. There was certainly the need to protect the single-family areas and provide appropriate transitions.
He said this was a good opportunity potentially to bring some of the work that was going on with Commercial Design guidelines and with the Smart Growth Consultant to see how the city could make use of that along this important corridor. He said the City needed to acknowledge that there was at least one development proposal that was imminent that was going to be affected.
Commissioner Hack said that brought up the question about the second concern and that was making it a priority because of the fact that there were other property owners involved and secondly, everyone was talking about new development not existing development. She said if there were existing properties that wanted to do some changing perhaps that should be addressed separately than the new development.
Mayor Rundle said there were good comments made and those comments were important in the context of this planning process. He said it gave a chance for the neighbors to thoughtfully consider those comments and alternatives.
Commissioner Schauner said that the City was missing part of the conversation. He said the City was one planner short, but even if the City was at full staffing, they were behind the curve in terms of ability to deal with all those requests in a reasonable time frame. He said it seemed that the City should be looking for two planners, not one planner. He said by the time a consultant was paid to do a plan for this particular project, it would be close to what a planner was paid for a years work. He said in the long-run it might be better to talk about adding a second planner to deal with this issue and other issues like this.
Commissioner Dunfield suggested addressing the issue at their budget study session tomorrow.
Mayor Rundle said Commissioner Dunfield mentioned that the City had money that was not being spent on that salaried position, and that money could be looked at as shrinkage as long as that position was opened and did not have a net affect until a new planner was hired.
Commissioner Schauner said he was not opposed to hiring a particular consultant for that project, but four to five months was more reasonable because by the time an RFP was developed and a consultant selected, four months from that point seemed like a more reasonable time line than just four months from today.
Finger said she agreed with Commissioner Schauner in that the City Commission was realistically looking at a 6 month moratorium.
Vice Mayor Highberger said the City Commission was getting into micro-managing and he did not want to place any unreasonable burden on Planning Staff, but it was the City Commission’s job to attach a timeline that indicated their priority for this project and let staff figure out how to deal with this issue with existing resources.
He said he supported the request from the neighborhood particularly in the area north of the Hillcrest neighborhood. He said the current zoning did not allow for any reasonable transition between a less dense residential neighborhood and what was on the other side and he would like to see that addressed. He supported the request for an area plan and for a moratorium on building permits for six months.
Commissioner Hack asked if Vice Mayor Highberger was talking about building permits only or new development in that area.
Vice Mayor Highberger asked if there was a way to separate those two issues.
Hill said they did not want to stop existing businesses from improving their properties in the normal course of business. One possible way of making that distinction was to put a moratorium on site development plans for new development or new uses and that would then allow existing business to do whatever they needed to do in a normal course of business for improvements.
Corliss spoke about the legal requirements on moratoriums. He said there was no statutory authority for a moratorium nor did the land use laws provide the City Commission to enact a moratorium. He said the City Commission would be acting under the home rule authority and any type of final action should be in the form of an ordinance to exercise that home rule authority.
He said the discussion was about two different types of moratoriums and he wanted to give his opinion. He said he had discussions with Hill about the difference between a moratorium on development plans and a moratorium on building permits. He said the City had also done moratoriums on annexations. He said with an annexation moratorium, the City Commission had complete authority to look out for the public interest on annexation and there were no zoning code requirements that spoke to annexations.
He said with building permits, the City Commission was outside of the planning and enabling statutes for the authority for building permits. He said there was other code authority for building permits and the City Commission could enact by ordinance a moratorium on building permits.
He said if the City Commission wanted a moratorium on development plans or site plans then those were actions that were governed by Chapter 20 of the City Code and the only way to amend Chapter 20 was to go through the Planning Commission and enact those requirements.
He said the timeframe should be limited and the City Commission spoke to that issue. He said he also had a concern about workload ability because it was one thing to establish a date, but another thing to have it postponed.
He said the Commission would need to act upon existing site plans that were within the study area. He said the Commission needed to act on those site plans already existing in the pipeline before the moratorium went into affect.
Commissioner Schauner asked where the pipeline began.
Corliss said the pipeline would begin for existing applications for site development work or building permits that were currently on file with the Planning office or with Neighborhood Resources.
Commissioner Dunfield suggested acting on the merits of the proposal. He agreed that something that had come that far through the system would need to be considered in the pipeline.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the City Commission would feel comfortable to ask staff to bring to the City Commission an ordinance, next week, that would embody the discussion about a moratorium long enough to develop an area plan for that area. He suggested that Planning staff tell the City Commission what they wanted in terms of time.
Commissioner Hack suggested some accommodation for neighborhood comments on the proposal.
Commissioner Dunfield suggested that staff communicate to the applicant that the Commission wanted to make sure everyone had ample time to review the proposal and defer the issue for a week.
Finger said staff could make the staff report available this week and that would give additional time over the holiday for additional review and staff would not place this issue on the City Commission’s agenda until July 13, 2004.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to receive the request from Hillcrest, Old West Lawrence, and Pinckney Neighborhood Associations for a land use area plan and direct staff to prepare an ordinance for a future agenda for a moratorium on building permits within the area from 5th Street, California Street, Alabama Street, and 7th Street. Motion carried unanimously. (8)
Receive staff report and draft ordinance concerning amendments to animal control code .
Ann Wilson, Chair, Anti-Tethering Committee, said their group was asking the City Commission to pass an ordinance that would restrict continuous tethering or chaining of dogs in the City of Lawrence.
She said there were three main reasons they would like to see a tethering ordinance implement which were cruelty, danger to the public, and danger to the animal itself.
She said the proposed ordinance was in no way intended to prohibit people from tethering their dogs outside for a couple of hours on a nice day. This ordinance was geared toward people who tether or chain their dogs for extended periods of time.
She said Midge Grinstead, Lawrence Humane Society, would discuss alternatives to tethering or chaining, the one hour rule in the ordinance and how that would help the Animal Control Department enforce the proposed ordinance.
Midge Grinstead said the Humane Society’s job was animal welfare. There was nothing in nature that prepared a dog to be chained or tethered for its lifetime. She said dogs had been bred over thousands of years to be human companions and they thrive on interaction with people and other animals. Dogs that were continuously chained become neurotic, have anxiety, and become aggressive.
The Humane Society of the United States, the American Humane Society, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and the American Veterinarian Association of the United States all agreed that tethering a dog for its lifetime or long extended hours was cruel and inhumane treatment.
Dogs that were typically tethered were the large breeds such as Akitas, Rottweilers, Pit Bulls, Doberman Pinchers, German Shepherds, all have a propensity, if they were not trained correctly, to become aggressive. She said those breeds also represented the top six biting breeds in the United States every year since 1979.
In addition to the emotional and psychological damage to constant tethering of dogs, there was also the risk of abuse by people and attacks from other animals. In the last seven years there had been 14 deaths of dogs due to hanging. Those were dogs that were placed on a chain for eight to ten hours that hung themselves by jumping over a fence.
She said they just had their first death by collar. She said each week they get two or three dogs where the collar was embedded or the collar was so tight that the animal could not breathe.
She said the average time that a person spent with their tethered dog was less than 10 minutes a day.
She said they had a unique perspective that no one else in this community had in that they were the only people that investigate cruelty and neglect every day and work with 800 animals a day. Last year they investigated 808 cruelty and neglect cases and the majority of those calls were in the City of Lawrence which 90% of those animals were dogs. She said 75% of those were dogs on chains or tethers.
Many of those cases that the Humane Society investigated had aggressive dogs chained to the front door and back door which many of those homes were known drug houses or dog fighters.
She presented photographs of several dogs shown on chains or ropes and she discussed why those types of restraints did not work.
Mayor Rundle said the small minority of people living where there was either no fenced yard, or their lease stated that no fence could be erected, or someone just could not afford a fence, he asked if it would be the enforcement officer who would make those judgment decisions on whether to cite a person.
Grinstead said the enforcement officers currently made a lot of discretionary calls, but she did not know if those officers would be able to with this type of law, but she thought that an officer should be able to use discretion.
Commissioner Dunfield said the information from the Humane Society along with the photos that were shown were really about dogs that lived on chains which was a continuous tethering of dogs. He said the difference between continuous and one hour was dramatic. He asked how the one hour time period was arrived at.
Grinstead said Animal Control Officers had a very limited amount of time. She said the City of Wichita could not allow an officer’s time of more than one hour. She said she had two letters that were negative and 25 phone calls that were positive on the one hour allotted time. She said she did not know what the answer was and she did not want to punish the people who were doing a good job.
Mayor Rundle asked whether the enforcement would be through Animal Control. He also asked if there was training that the Humane Society could provide to Animal Control so they were clear on that ordinance.
Grinstead said currently, the City had three Animal Control Officers that were all doing an excellent job. She said those officers were clear on the proposed ordinance.
Commissioner Schauner asked if it was Grinstead’s experience that if the one hour provision remained that a trained Animal Control Officer could, by observing the general setting in which they found a dog, make a judgment about whether it would be worth spending an hour watching that particular location.
Grinstead said yes.
Commissioner Hack asked if this issue would be complaint driven.
Grinstead said yes.
John Chaney, business owner and supporter of the Humane Society, spoke about the ordinance and in particular the one hour time limit. He said it was not hard to tell if a dog was being neglected. He said the one hour time limit was a good starting point. He said if a ticket was issued, a person could always use the appeal process through the court system.
Julia Peter, Attorney in Lawrence, said she chained her dog up a couple of hours in the morning and her dog enjoyed it. She said she did not like the idea of a one hour time limit. She said the decision could be appealed or the officers could tell by the dog it was being neglected, but the one hour limitation gave too much lee way for people to be punished.
Jane Hoyt spoke about the treatment of people who own pets. She said her husband had been charged with criminal animal at large. She said those types of laws needed to have some type of under girding that would make those laws fair.
Claire Roberts spoke in support of the proposed ordinance. She said the enforcement of a law asking animal owners to have a limit on how long they could tether a dog was a good thing. People needed to be responsible and accountable for their animals. She said maybe having such a law would prevent people from tethering a dog for hours, prevent the death of animals, and prevent crime.
Mary Wendt spoke against the proposed ordinance. She said they currently tether their dogs as a last resort because all other restraints did not work. She said the way the ordinance was written, it could discriminate against all pet owners who keep their dogs outside.
Emanuelle Ban spoke in support of the proposed ordinance. She did not believe any animal, whether it was a good or bad dog, should be chained for life.
Megan W. shared her experience about a tethered dog in North Lawrence. She said she headed up a local educational campaign known as “Have a Heart for Chain Dogs.” She said during this campaign, she gathered over 40 addresses of homes where there were chained dogs within the City of Lawrence. On Valentine’s Day she visited each of those 40 homes with a homemade valentine, dog biscuits, information on the “Dogs Deserve Better Organization,” a letter offering financial assistance for fencing, resources on house training, and an offer for adoptive services if the dog was not wanted by the owner.
She said Nelson Mandela, 1993 Nobel Prize in Peace Winner, once said “For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.” She said it was her belief that this ordinance did just that for the hundreds of dogs currently living in Lawrence on tethers and were subsequently denied the most basic right of “freedom.”
Amy Povich spoke on the perspective of public safety. She said her husband and her changed routes several times because of dogs on chains. She said there were wonderful dog owners in Lawrence and she did not think a restriction on tethering would infringe on those good dog owners.
Gordon Merritt said he had worked with dogs nearly all his life. He said he had tethered many dogs because they were not paying attention to their training, five minutes at a time. He said tethering was a punishment because a dog’s freedom was being taken away. He was not against people who wanted to put their dog out on a leash for an hour or two, but not for eight hours because that was being cruel.
He said concerning people who could not afford fencing, a 10 X 10, 6 foot tall, dog enclosure for less than $250. He said $250 was not a lot of money to spend on a loving companion.
He said the proposed ordinance was not to go after people who put their dogs out for one or two hours, but to protect the dog.
Monica Dubben spoke in support of the ordinance. She said the proposed ordinance was about preventing neglect and cruelty. She said the Humane Society needed a law to allow them to enforce that.
Cheryl Roth spoke in support of the ordinance. She said if the Humane Society could talk to more people about the proper way to take care of a dog, it might result in better care by dog owners.
Kris Taylor, Area Representative for “Dogs Deserve Better,” said they focused on animals that were chained or pinned for a lifetime. She said there were other options available for those minorities that were good pet owners that could not find another way other than to chain their pets. She said the Humane Society could provide education and help for those people who felt that chaining was their last resort.
She said their organization, at times, had paid to put up a 6 foot fence or a pen to get the dog off the chain.
Neal Lintecum spoke in support of the ordinance. He said one point that had not been emphasized was that it was the public health aspect of tethered dogs. He said a non-tethered dog was less likely to bite.
Mayor Rundle asked Grinstead when she talked with the City of Wichita concerning tethered dogs, did she talk about the gray area of enforcement.
Grinstead said the City of Wichita had a Dispatch Officer for regular calls and a Dispatch Officer for animal control calls. She said the Dispatch Officer for animal control said that their officers used discretion when addressing their ordinance.
Commissioner Schauner asked whether there was a correlation between tethered or chained dogs and illegal activity including drug houses.
Grinstead said it depended on the dog. She said the majority of pit bulls that they see in yards, chained to front and back doors, were typically bred to sell for fighting dogs, a drug house, or both. That information was turned over to the police and sheriffs department.
Commissioner Hack said when the City Commission was addressing the Vicious Dog Ordinance they were looking at that issue countywide and she asked if they were just focused on Lawrence.
Grinstead said they were focusing on Lawrence. She said the majority of cruelty and neglect calls were in Lawrence.
Commissioner Hack said this ordinance would enable Grinstead to do her job and she would strongly support the ordinance.
Commissioner Highberger said he had some initial concerns about the ordinance because he was not sure that every instance of tethering a dog for an hour constituted abuse. He said he understood that in order for this ordinance to be enforceable, there needed to be a shorter time limit.
He said he had considered suggesting adding some other element such as minimal evidence of neglect, but he did not want to make this proposed ordinance any more difficult to enforce. He supported the ordinance as drafted.
Mayor Rundle said this ordinance was well founded. He suggested that the supervisors of the Animal Control Department, as part of the new training, discuss appropriate enforcement and monitor the enforcement for effective and appropriate compliance. He said he supported the proposed ordinance.
Commissioner Dunfield concurred in support of the ordinance. He said he was initially concerned about the one hour limitation, but he understood the issue of enforceability. He said in all of those types of situations, it would be the judgment of the officers that would be the essential component. He said it was never the intention with any of the City’s animal cruelty related ordinances to go out and persecute people who were not abusing their pets, just for the sake of enforcing an ordinance.
Commissioner Schauner concurred with the other Commissioners comments. He suggested going to the website “dogsdeservebetter.com.”
He said he was reminded of a saying that, “One measure of a society’s level of civilization is how it treats its animals.” He said the very fact that people were willing to have a Humane Society, to care for animals, was significant evidence of how important that activity was. He said there were ample reasons to support this ordinance, but he feared that it would get reported as, one more attempt by this City Commission to strangle the inherent rights and privileges of the citizens of this community. He said he hoped that was not how it was reported because it certainly wasn’t what this Commission intended. He said this City Commission’s intention was to make this a safer community and a more humane community for all of us who live here. He supported the ordinance.
Rundle asked whether the ordinance on the agenda was ready for consideration.
Corliss said he drafted the ordinance last week and he wanted to talk to the Humane Society to make sure the language in section one was appropriate. He said the next section of the ordinance was a change in the definition of “dangerous dog.” He said the City had a dangerous dog ordinance that allowed for a civil proceeding where the animal control officers and the prosecutors would present to the judge evidence that would indicate that a particular dog was dangerous and allowed for conditions to be placed on the continued ownership of the dog or in some cases the impoundment of the dog. One of the key aspects was the definition of “dangerous dog.”
He said in a situation earlier this year, an individual was chased by a dog on private property and the case was prosecuted, but the judge acquitted that individual because the ordinance read that if there was an attack that didn’t result in any physical contract on the person, on public property and that event took place on private property. As a result, section two of the proposed ordinance read: “Any dog which in a vicious or threatening manner, approaches any person in an apparent attack upon the person while on the streets, sidewalks, or any public grounds or places; or on private property” would be considered a dangerous dog. He said the reason why “private property” was not included in the original draft was because there would be situations in the future where a dog might threaten an attack, but not physically attack the person, but was on private property.
He said the next section had to do with the City’s general animal control code which needed additional discussion. He said the intent of the ordinance, when it was originally enacted, was to prohibit people from having birds except in those situations where they were considered as indoor pets. He said there was also a further exception where the more rural parts of the community were grandfathered in. He said that area needed additional discussion. If the City Commission proceeded with the ordinance adoption, the next section would be lost.
Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Hack, to receive the staff report and draft ordinance concerning amendments to the animal control code; and direct staff to place the ordinance on a future agenda. Notion carried unanimously. (9)
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
COMMISSION ITEMS:
Commissioner Hack asked staff if they could look into an annual or bi-annual cleaning of the downtown sidewalks.
Commissioner Hack also asked what the policy was for the planter’s downtown and if the individual stores could take over those planters which could add to the beautification of downtown.
Mayor Rundle suggested staff plan to provide more ash tray receptacles.
Commissioner Schauner asked for staff input on how they might proceed to look at impact fees or excise taxes or some other method of beginning to implement some of those items that were in the white paper in terms of how to come closer to funding the cost of residential growth.
CALENDAR:
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to cancel the July 27, 2004 City Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Hack, to adjourn at 8:55. Motion carried unanimously.
_____________________________
Mike Rundle, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 29, 2004
1. Bid – Chip & Seal Program to Vance Brothers for $62,146.58.
2. Charter Ordinance No. 37 – 2nd Reading, Municipal Court Trial Proceedings.
3. Transportation – PTAC to allow K-12 students & Haskell University students to ride the “T” half-fare.
4. Transportation – PTAC to designate up to 10 free riderships per calendar year.
5. Release of Mortgage – 2001 Massachusetts, Shirley Connett.
6. Release of Mortgage – 3243 Glacier Dr., Rebekah Senger.
7. Sister Cities Advisory Board – Funding
8. Land Use Area Plan – 6th, California, Michigan & 7th.
9. Animal Control Code – Tethering.