Councilors Hartzell/Chapman m/s to approve Consent Agenda Items #1-5 and #7. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.

Councilor Hartzell questioned the potential of securing the bike path easement on the railroad property and commented that it may not be possible to afford or be granted long-term access to the section that is optimal.

Public Works Director Paula Brown agreed that obtaining an easement from Union Pacific might not be easy. She explained this small section along A Street is not the stumbling block, and clarified the main issue is the section between Oak and Fourth Streets. She stated the bike path project is very important to her and staff will continue to pursue these easements.

Councilor Chapman/Jackson m/s to approve Consent Agenda Item #6. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.

Ms. Bennett noted some of the concerns raised by staff. She noted that Ashland does not have an animal control function and the State laws are currently being enforced by Jackson County. By adopting this ordinance, the City would have to add an animal control function in either the Police Department or the Community Development Department under Code Enforcement. She added this ordinance would place an additional enforcement burden on the City that we currently do not carry.

Councilor Silbiger commented that the State laws do apply to Ashland, and at this point the City has no officers trained in animal control, no facilities, no equipment, and no budget for this function.

Interim Police Chief Ron Goodpaster clarified the Police Department picks up approximately 8-10 dogs a year, and they are mostly strays. He stated this ordinance has a significant amount of overlap with the current animal control function being provided by the County. If this ordinance were to pass, he stated he would need to meet with Jackson County Animal Control and work out the enforcement issues. He added the tethering enforcement would need to be dealt with internally by the City, but almost every other area of this ordinance is covered by State law.

Ambuja Rosen/Stated this ordinance would only protect dogs from living on a chain; and voiced concern that it would not apply to cats, rabbits and other mammals. She voiced support for requiring all domesticated mammals to have the same chaining limits as dogs, with the exception of horses; and stated including all mammals in the chaining limit would not make the ordinance difficult to enforce. Ms. Rosen displayed photos depicting the dangers of tethering to animals. She stated no law is 100% enforceable and this is no reason to exclude cats from the law.

Annette Mesco/954 Granite Street/Stated she is a current volunteer and past board member of Friends of the Animal Shelter. Ms. Mesco stated she is speaking on behalf of this organization and encouraged the Council to pass the proposed ordinance. She stated life for a dog on a chain is cruel, and that limiting tethering as well as the other provisions for adequate shelter, water and food would greatly reduce the suffering many animals have to endure.

David Calderwood/28104 Spence Creek Road, Eugene/Stated he is a retired professional dog handler and a judge for the American Kennel Club. Mr. Calderwood stated ordinances similar to this one have been proposed in many areas of the U.S., and claimed they are being brought forward by animal rights organizations promoting their own political agendas. He stated animal rights organizations are trying to make it more expensive and more difficult to own domesticated animals and commented on the actions of PETA.
Written testimony was submitted into the public record.

Sylvia Calderwood/28104 Spence Creek, Eugene/Stated she is an active member of the Eugene Kennel Club and an active member of the No-Kill Community Coalition. Ms. Calderwood stated they are making great strides in Lane County and they are doing it without legislation and without opposition. She stated that not all animal control laws and regulations are good for animals, and stated she could not find any scientific proof that tethering is harmful to dogs. She stated the ordinance appears to be based on what seems reasonable, rather than actual scientific data.
Written testimony was submitted into the public record.

Jackie Reid/1040 Clay Street/Expressed concern with the ordinance provision that requires animals to have access to exercise space at least 75% of the time. She commented that she had taken care of a puppy for several months, and stated if she had not been able to crate the puppy while she was away, the puppy would have caused harm to itself.

Nina Counsel/2970 Diane Street/Voiced support for the proposed ordinance. Ms. Counsel noted an experience she had in Ashland where a neighbor's dog was tied to a 6-foot tether for over a year. She also noted a situation where a horse was rescued after one and half years of being tied to a tree.

Hillary Tiefer/565 Wrights Creek Drive/Shared her experience with tethering abuse and stated she would like to see some changes.

Ann Wilton/391 Liberty Street/Stated she is President of Companion Animal Rescue and Education (C.A.R.E). She voiced her support for the ordinance and stated she is glad it includes protection to all animals and not just dogs. Ms. Wilton voiced criticism with the Jackson County Animal Shelter. She stated the State laws would help to protect animals, but often the County declines to follow through on violations. She stated that because the proposed ordinance is specific, it will enable the laws to be better enforced and encouraged the Council to pass the ordinance.

Tony Paxton/2036 Brownsboro-Meridian Road, Eagle Point/Stated there are already State and County laws that can be enforced and questioned the need to add another layer of government and impose a burden on the City of Ashland. He stated Section C(3) of the ordinance regarding the opportunity for exercise is unnecessary and stated that dogs are not "one size fits all". He suggested the first and last sentences of this section be eliminated and stated the ordinance would be a duplication of existing law and it is not necessary.

Marlis Shaffer/1971 Dead Indian Memorial Road/Voiced support for the ordinance and stated it would make people think a little more before getting a dog. She stated there is no question that this ordinance should pass.

Sigrit Morghen/1000 Dead Indian Memorial Road/Shared her experience with teaching about animals and stated this ordinance is a step in the right direction.

Peg Stewart/10255 Mt. Ashland Road/Stated she is a board member for the C.A.R.E. organization and voiced support for the ordinance. Ms. Stewart encouraged the Council to retain a containment space size for cats. She stated cases involving cats do not occur very often, but when they do, they are typically very severe. She added including cats in this provision would not cause a huge enforcement burden on the City.

Dean Royce/1365 Ponderosa Drive/Voiced his surprise that the City does not already have such laws in place and voiced support for the ordinance.

Ginger Humphrey/1138 Village Square Drive, Medford/Voiced her support for the ordinance. Ms. Humphrey stated she has visited countries where they have no animal laws and have seen first hand dogs that are tied up their entire lives.

Mary Gabriel/Voiced support for the ordinance and stated she is also surprised that the City does not have these requirements already in place. Ms. Gabriel stated if any town were to set a standard for compassion it should be Ashland. She stated she has seen some horrific cases involving animals and recommended the Council pass the ordinance.

Cameron Gabriel/Voiced support for the ordinance and stated it would force people to be more responsible for their animals. Mr. Gabriel commented about a dog that was tied to the side of a house on East Main Street for over a year. He stated people need to be more responsible with their animals and animal guardianship should not be taken lightly.

Jana Toney/80 Ashland Lane/Noted her involvement in veterinary care, rescue missions, and housesitting for pets. Ms. Toney voiced support for the ordinance with the exception of a violation being an infraction. She stated the way the ordinance is written it is not strict enough. She recommended dogs be given 150 sq. ft. instead of 97 sq. ft. and stated a space requirement should also be considered for cats.

Mary Anderson/P.O. Box 5374, Central Point/Stated she is not in favor of the proposed ordinance and voiced her concern with volunteers performing some of the enforcement. She stated the ordinance is open to interpretation and violates human rights. Ms. Anderson stated that crating helps to protect both the animal and personal possessions and stated animals that are trained to crate do not suffer intensely or have a troubled life.
Written testimony was submitted into the public record.

Ben Bloom/215 Glenview Drive/Noted if someone violated the minimum space requirement of 97 sq. ft., the animal would be seized and placed in a much smaller space. He also questioned if veterinarians would need to expand their facilities to meet the space requirement. Mr. Bloom stated the ordinance does not make sense and the City does not need it. He added there are ways to control this issue under the State and County laws.

Ron Elterman/355 Glenn Street/Stated the proposed ordinance is a reasonable extension of the weak State and County laws. Mr. Elterman suggested a provision for a veterinarian to provide written permission in the special instances where a pet needs to be contained in a space smaller than 97 sq. ft. He stated the ordinance is a good way to strengthen the weak laws and feels it is reasonable and humane.

Kathy Ettinger/Voiced her opposition to the ordinance and questioned how individuals are suppose to contain their dogs while at work if they do not have a fenced yard. She stated there are various dog groups that tether their dogs humanely and have done so for many years. Ms. Ettinger commented on the 97 sq. ft. space requirement and questioned why a small dog would need this much space. She also stated that dogs do not need to exercise 75% of the time and stated there are some breeds where this much exercise would do harm. She also questioned how the 90-minute walk would be monitored.
Written testimony was submitted into the public record.

City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified the 90 minute walk requirement was in an earlier draft but is not included in this ordinance.

Susan Fuller/4925 Tioga Way, Central Point/Stated she does not object to animal cruelty laws, but voiced opposition to the proposed ordinance. She stated there are plenty of laws in place, they just need to be enforced; and stated this ordinance goes to the extreme. Ms. Fuller commented on the provision that requires a dog to be accessible to exercise 75% of the time, and questioned if she would be in violation since her dogs sleep inside the house for 8 hours each night. She also stated the 97 sq. ft. space requirement might be fine for some dogs, but not others. Ms. Fuller raised issue with the provision that allows agents of a humane society to enforce this ordinance and have the ability to remove animals from public or private property, and make the decision to euthanize the animal.

Barbara Rooney/Medford/Stated she is totally against the proposed ordinance. Ms. Rooney explained that she utilizes dog pens during the summer; and stated the dogs have plenty of room and typically sleep. Ms. Rooney stated the State laws do "have teeth" and suggested the City consider ways to bolster animal control and not adopt a separate law.

Penny Mayben/P.O. Box 1059, Shady Cove/Stated she has been a dog fancier since 1973 and has participated in several forms of dog legislation and education. Ms. Mayben stated she is against Section C(3) of the ordinance and stated that 97 sq. ft. does not work for all animals. She stated that puppies that are crate trained often return to their crates to sleep and will stay there even when the doors are removed. Ms. Mayben voiced her opposition to volunteers acting as militia and stated there are already people who can enforce the law.

Carolyn Cannon/8485 Ramsey Road, Gold Hill/Stated she is on the rescue committee of the Cardigan Welsh Corgi Club of America. Ms Cannon stated she is passionate about animal welfare, but stated there are several things that concern her about the proposed ordinance. She stated that dog requirements are not one size fits all and suggested the Council carefully review the wording of the ordinance for any unintended ramifications. She stated if the proposed ordinance were adopted it would be impossible for the City to enforce it with its current staff and stated an unenforceable ordinance is no better than no ordinance at all. Ms. Cannon also voiced concern with the possibility of citizen vigilante patrols spying on their neighbors.
Written testimony was submitted into the public record.

Patrick Markus/813 Leonard Street/Stated the proposed ordinance is invasive and an intrusion to the rights of property owners, renters and pet owners who love their animals. Mr. Markus stated the ordinance is not based on reality or need, and stated for every bad example there are probably dozens or hundreds of humane and compassionate pet owners who use tethering as a means to control their animals. He stated placing limits would not stop cruelty; it will only place financial and logistical burdens on pet owners. Mr. Markus stated that tethering animals on a pulley or trolley system is an acceptable alternative, but would be banned by this ordinance. He also stated the time limits in the ordinance are unrealistic and if accepted would be the most stringent time limits imposed in the nation.

Tina Beck/476 Galls Creek Road, Gold Hill/Stated there should be some kind of City law that protects animals, but voiced concern with the wording of the proposed ordinance. Ms. Beck stated the language needs to be closely thought out to protect property owner's rights. She also stated that dogs are legal property and the owner should have property rights over their animals.
Written testimony was submitted into the public record.

Sally Mackler/Stated she is representing the local organization Spay-Neuter Your Pet (S.N.Y.P.) Ms. Mackler commented on the benefits of the proposed ordinance overlapping with County and State laws and stated this would relieve the City of the enforcement responsibility for the majority of the ordinance. She shared her belief that those who oppose the ordinance have a financial interest at stake and fear that if the ordinance passes here in Ashland it will spread to their communities. She voiced support for the 150 sq. ft. space requirement and believes the one-hour limit will make the ordinance extremely enforceable.

Ragan Cavanaugh/560 Oak Street/Voiced her appreciation that the Council is discussing this issue and hopes they will adopt the ordinance even if compromises need to be made. She stated she wants to live in a town that has compassion for animals and hopes they realize that animals do suffer even if it has not been proven.

Ryan Navickas/711 Faith Avenue/Stated some people have raised idiosyncrasies in this ordinance, but most of them are miniscule. Mr. Navickas stated the ordinance is an excellent step in the right direction.

Jony Wilson/4606 Fish Lake Road, Butte Falls/Stated she is Vice President of the Alaska Malamute Assistance League. Ms. Wilson stated the non-tethering law has gone into affect in other parts of the nation and has severely affected Alaska Malamutes and Siberian Huskies. She explained there are musher's who humanly tethering their dogs and stated this ordinance would impact these individuals and put a burden on the rescue organizations.

Written testimony was submitted by the following individuals and made part of the public record:
Chris Adamson; Sallie Sandler; Eric Jenkins/141 Morse Avenue; Cicely Jenkins/141 Morse Avenue; Mary Ruth Wooding/727 Park Street; Gloria Hafner/1379 Lithia Way; Angie Thusius/897 Beach Street; Pat Boydston/2804 Cordelia Way; Jesse Hanwit/458 Beach Street; Mary Beth Lamb; Ben Benjamin/881 S. Mountain Avenue; and Ron Hulteen/87 Granite Street.

Mayor Morrison closed the public hearing at 8:42 p.m.

City Attorney Mike Franell noted the following corrections in the proposed ordinance: 1) Section 9.06.040 and 9.06.050 should refer to Section 9.06.030, and 2) Section 9.06.060 should refer to Section 9.06.020. Mr. Franell also suggested striking the phrase "or licensed veterinarian, any officer or agent of any duly incorporated humane society, animal shelter or other appropriate facility" from Section 9.06.030.

Councilor Silbiger noted he had researched the Oregon State law and stated it very nicely defines the basic treatment of animals. He read the law aloud and stated it is very comprehensive. He also noted that many of the instances heard this evening are in violation of the existing State law. He stated the only portion of the ordinance not covered by existing law is tethering, and suggested the City consider adopting a law similar to California Senate Bill 1578.

City Administrator Martha Bennett commented that the City is lacking sufficient staff, staff that is adequately trained, and the appropriate equipment to engage in animal control.

Interim Police Chief Ron Goodpaster clarified the City currently contracts with Jackson County for animal control services and they do the vast majority of enforcement for the City. He added all of the items covered in the proposed ordinance, with the exception of the tethering aspect, are covered in existing Oregon State law.

Comment was made questioning how to get the State Law better enforced. Mr. Goodpaster suggested he meet with Jackson County Animal Control and have them more clearly define the services they are providing; and then if necessary alter or modify the City's contract with them.

Mr. Goodpaster noted training within the City would be necessary if this ordinance was approved. He also clarified he had contacted several organizations around the Country that had this type of ordinance and stated that agencies who used the one hour model had success because it was very easy to enforce. Mr. Goodpaster noted he could not locate a city or municipality where the law enforcement arm was responsible for the enforcement of the tethering regulations.

Councilor Hartzell/Silbiger m/s to direct staff to return in a reasonable amount of time with a draft that localizes California SB1578 to Ashland; and ensure that the materials that accompany that include the factors that should be considered when establishing the maximum time period for tethering.

DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman stated he would like to determine if the ordinance is necessary before they spend time discussing it. He voiced his opposition to the ordinance and suggested they focus their efforts on public education.

Councilor Hartzell stated that adopting a law similar to California would give some definition to the extreme cases of tethering. She stated the California bill looks reasonable and does not appear to be covered in Oregon law. She requested staff return with options for the hourly tethering limits with the benefits and concerns for each.

Councilor Hardesty voiced support for a 2-hour limit. She also stated they would need to ensure there is adequate enforcement if they go with the Oregon Law with the California tethering bill attached.

Councilor Silbiger questioned what this would cost the City. Ms. Bennett clarified that staff attempted to do some cost estimating, however it is not possible to determine how many cases the City would have and how expensive this would be. She stated if Council is interested in contracting with Jackson County to provide these services, staff could find out how much they would charge.

Councilor Navickas commented that the State law is subjective and voiced support for moving forward with the proposed ordinance. He stated the ordinance would likely only affect the worse case scenarios.

Councilor Hartzell clarified her motion would involve doing a quick re-write of the California Bill and should not be too time consuming for staff. She also clarified the second portion of the motion involves staff including in their memo the pros and cons of the various time limits for tethering.

Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Navickas and Hartzell, YES. Councilor Hardesty, Jackson, and Chapman, NO. Mayor Morrison, YES. Motion passed 4-3.

John Stromberg/252 Ridge Road/Submitted a written request for an item to be placed on a Council agenda. Mr. Stromberg explained his proposal would modify the process by which the Budget Committee negotiates with staff to determine the final version of the budget. He stated the notion is to modify it in such a way that it becomes a better tool for Council and the Budget Committee to responsibly make decisions that affect how much the City spends on various activities.

Ex Parte Contact: None was reported.

It was noted that Councilor Navickas would not participate in the vote, as he was not part of the original decision.

Mr. Molnar further clarified the Findings were initially prepared by the Applicant's attorney; however they were re-written by the Legal Department in order to adequately address the approval criteria, and the allegations and testimony that came forward during the hearing.

City Attorney Mike Franell stated he had just received a request from Art Bullock to bring forth a challenge for bias; however, at this point it is too late to bring forward anything that should have been brought forth at the public hearing. He stated that given there has been no additional ex parte contact disclosed tonight, he does not believe the hearing should be opened to hear a challenge on bias.

Councilor Jackson/Hardesty m/s to excuse Councilor Navickas from voting on this action. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.

Councilor Jackson/Chapman m/s to approve Findings for PA 206-00078 as presented by Staff. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hardesty, Chapman, Silbiger, Hartzell and Jackson, YES. Motion passed.

Mr. Tuneberg clarified the AFN Business Plan would be presented to the Council in February.

Councilor Chapman commented that it is difficult to resolve this issue in this type of a setting and suggested a subcommittee of the Budget Committee be appointed to bring forward a recommendation.

Councilor Hardesty voiced support for Chapman's suggestion and stated she is interested in further exploring the options of a graduated utility charge, the possible sale of surplus property, and additional Transient Occupancy Tax revenue.

Councilor Hartzell/Chapman m/s to extend meeting until 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.

Some concern was expressed that if the debt was distributed amongst the various departments, it could result in increased fees. Mayor Morrison commented that that staff has presented a good plan that will work well and encouraged the Council to move forward with their recommendation.

James Moore, Jr./1217 Park Street/Stated the recommendation from staff goes against the statements made by the Mr. Tuneberg in his 2007 budget address. He stated this plan would take money from the funds Mr. Tuneberg had warned were in danger of falling below minimums. In addition, he stated there appears to be no means of providing the revenue streams to pay back what would be taken from the funds. Mr. Moore suggested the City take a new approach to the AFN problem; one that incorporates all the players and makes them part of the solution. He asked the Council to consider modifying the current budget procedure, review the five specific tasks outlined in the City's budget role, and establish budget goals that relate to them. He also asked the Council to review the white paper that was submitted by himself, Mr. Stromberg and Mr. Hopkins.

Colin Swales/461 Allison Street/Commented on the option of selling surplus City property. Mr. Swales noted in the staff memo there was reference to an inventory of surplus property that came before the Council in 2004 and requested this information be made available to the public. He stated there are creative ways to look at the best utilization of City property and encouraged the Council to revisit this option.

Councilor Navickas shared his concern that the internal charges would result in an increase to utility fees and viewed this option as a regressive tax that is hidden.

Mr. Tuneberg clarified staff would need direction on this issue prior to the beginning of the budget process.

Councilor Hardesty/Chapman m/s to put together a small committee of two councilors, two Budget Committee members and one or two public members to discuss the ramifications of the different kinds of revenue streams and at the same time budget controls looking at long term. DISCUSSION: Councilor Silbiger voiced concern that this committee would not come up with any new ideas. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hartzell, Silbiger, Chapman and Jackson, NO. Councilor Hardesty and Navickas, YES. Motion denied 4-2.

Councilor Jackson/Silbiger m/s to take staff's suggestion as a starting point to move forward. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hartzell, Navickas and Hardesty, NO. Councilor Jackson, Chapman, and Silbiger, YES. Mayor Morrison, YES. Motion passed 4-3.

Councilor Jackson/Chapman motion to move forward with authorization.

Unable to continue with motion and discussion due to time constraints.