JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS MISSOULA CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 7, 2011
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting of the Missoula City Council was called to order by Mayor Engen at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers at 140 West Pine Street. Present were Alderwomen Hellegaard, Marler, Mitchell, Rye, Walzer and Wolken and Aldermen Childers, Haines, Jaffe, Strohmaier, Wiener and Wilkins. Also present were Chief Administrative Officer Bender, City Attorney Nugent, Finance Director Ramharter, Public Information/ Communications Officer Merriam and City Clerk Rehbein.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the regular meeting of October 24, 2011 were approved as submitted.
SCHEDULE COMMITTEE MINUTES
The following meetings were announced: Wed., November 9, 2011, 9:35 – 10:30 a.m. Public Works (PW) Wed., November 9, 2011, 10:35 – Noon Plat, Annexation, and Zoning Committee (PAZ) Wed., November 9, 2011, 1:05 – 4:00 p.m. Committee of the Whole (COW) No Meeting Public Safety and Health Committee (PSH) No Meeting Pedestrian Connection Subcommittee No Meeting Administration and Finance Committee (A&F) No Meeting Conservation Committee (Cons) No Meeting Budget Committee of the Whole (BCOW) No Meeting Economic Development Subcommittee
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Paul Bohan said since he‘s been running for Ward 3, he‘s learned a lot of interesting things and has talked about a lot of different things. We have a new stadium called blighted. We have property taxes called fees. We have people calling an opinion statement a referendum and he has a hard time with that. He has a natural interest, persistence and drive to see that things are done in the right way for the right reason. He wants Council members to see and understand the consequences on individuals in the community of what they do and what they plan to do. He wants the public to be informed so they can hold Council members accountable and seek recourse and redress for their concerns without having to hire a lawyer. He wants to raise the bar for what it means to be a public servant. It‘s not about winning or losing. Winning isn‘t what government is about. Our Constitutional amendment initiative and this is a statement about people who want to be winners and have losers: ―The citizens of Missoula, Montana hereby urge the Montana State Legislature and the United States Congress...‖ not all citizens do, some people are going to vote no and some aren‘t going to vote because he thinks this referendum isn‘t a referendum; it‘s an opinion statement. When you have referendums like this, you open the door to anything and some of it can be very, very negative. Once you‘re in the government office, you represent everybody. You don‘t manipulate the system, don‘t change or bend the rules because you think that‘s the way you can win. That‘s not what you do. You represent everybody. You follow the rules. Discrimination is about not following the rules. We talk about victims of discrimination. It‘s not the victims that are the problem; the problem are the people who are bending the rules and not following them. The people who use these victims to support their own groups bend the rules doing the same thing that they say that they‘re against. They bend the rules. Some people get favored treatment and some people don‘t; that‘s was discrimination is. The baseball stadium is a favored treatment for certain people, the MRA is favored money for favored people. He wants people to look and say, here‘s a specific thing that we want to do and here‘s how I‘m going to make it happen. That‘s the way it should be, none of this posturing to save the world and put an initiative on here so our voters come out. He doesn‘t want that to happen anymore.
City of Missoula City Council Minutes –November 7, 2011 - Page 2
Alisa Watson said she agrees with what Mr. Bohan just said. She sees this going on with the choices that our elected officials are making regarding our poor, not giving them opportunity and throwing money in areas where there‘s other resources, government agencies not having funds to support the laws already existing that are for the best of everyone, such as dogs not on a leash. The trails disturb her. There are a lot of people with disabilities and handicaps that have animals that they need to walk and their doctors are telling them to walk but they‘re fearful to go on the trails because people aren‘t following the rules. We have the laws but there‘s no one there to enforce them, yet no one is saying help us help you. We have all these people without work who have skills and those people who have skills don‘t want to sit there drawing unemployment; they want something to put on their resume, they want to keep working and they don‘t know what to do with their time and they don‘t have direction and we turn to the City Council for direction. So, throwing money at problems is not always the best solution for the community as a whole and when we forget that, we go broke and we go homeless and we have a lot of people that have skills that no one knows about. They don‘t have the ability or opportunity to show people that have openings what they can do.
CONSENT AGENDA (1 ROLL CALL VOTE)
1. Approve claims totaling $ 824,807.56. (Detailed Claims) (Chart of Accounts) (A&F) (11/01/11) 2. Approve claims totaling $ 1,416,497.17. (Detailed Claims) (Chart of Accounts) (A&F) (11/08/11) 3. Confirm the reappointment of Kimberley Best to the Tourism Business Improvement District Board of Trustees for a four-year term commencing December 1, 2011 and ending November 30, 2014. (A&F) 4. Resolution 7661—Adopt a resolution authorizing submittal of an application to the Montana Department of Commerce Big Sky Economic Development Trust Fund in the amount of $187,500 for the purpose of supporting business expansion and job creation at TerraEchos, Inc. (A&F) 5. Set a public hearing on November 21, 2011, to consider a resolution amending the annual appropriations for the Missoula Redevelopment Agency as set forth in the fiscal year 2011 budget and capital improvement program that increases the total Missoula Redevelopment Agency budget by $4,843,380. (A&F) 6. Approve and allow the Mayor to sign the agreement, with EKO Compost to implement Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) wood waste grant and to support the Missoula Sawmill Site Wood Waste Reclamation Project. (Cons) 7. Resolution 7662—Adopt a resolution in accordance with Section 7-5-4308, MCA procedure to modify municipal contracts, approving change order No. 3 – Milwaukee Trail – Russell to Reserve to the contract between L. S. Jensen Construction & Ready Mix and the city of Missoula. (Updated Memo 11/03/2011) (Cons) 8. Resolution 7663—Adopt a resolution of intention to adopt amendments to the city of Missoula Subdivision Regulations, Article 3 entitled ―Subdivision Design Standards,‖ Section 3-020 entitled ―Streets, Access and Transportation‖ and set a public hearing for November 28, 2011. (PAZ) 9. Approve appropriate traffic control signs to post a twenty-five miles per hour (25 mph) speed limit on Old Fort Road between the intersections of Old Fort Road and 200 feet northeast of Post Siding Road. (PW)
AMENDED CONSENT AGENDA (1 ROLL CALL VOTE)
1. Approve claims totaling $ 824,807.56. (Detailed Claims) (Chart of Accounts) (A&F) (11/01/11) 2. Item under Committee Reports. 3. Confirm the reappointment of Kimberley Best to the Tourism Business Improvement District Board of Trustees for a four-year term commencing December 1, 2011 and ending November 30, 2014. (A&F) 4. Resolution 7661—Adopt a resolution authorizing submittal of an application to the Montana Department of Commerce Big Sky Economic Development Trust Fund in the amount of $187,500 for the purpose of supporting business expansion and job creation at TerraEchos, Inc. (A&F) 5. Set a public hearing on November 21, 2011, to consider a resolution amending the annual appropriations for the Missoula Redevelopment Agency as set forth in the fiscal year 2011 budget and capital improvement program that increases the total Missoula Redevelopment Agency budget by $4,843,380. (A&F) City of Missoula City Council Minutes –November 7, 2011 - Page 3
6. Approve and allow the Mayor to sign the agreement, with EKO Compost to implement Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) wood waste grant and to support the Missoula Sawmill Site Wood Waste Reclamation Project. (Cons) 7. Resolution 7662—Adopt a resolution in accordance with Section 7-5-4308, MCA procedure to modify municipal contracts, approving change order No. 3 – Milwaukee Trail – Russell to Reserve to the contract between L. S. Jensen Construction & Ready Mix and the city of Missoula. (Updated Memo 11/03/2011) (Cons) 8. Resolution 7663—Adopt a resolution of intention to adopt amendments to the city of Missoula Subdivision Regulations, Article 3 entitled ―Subdivision Design Standards,‖ Section 3-020 entitled ―Streets, Access and Transportation‖ and set a public hearing for December 5, 2011. (PAZ) 9. Approve appropriate traffic control signs to post a twenty-five miles per hour (25 mph) speed limit on Old Fort Road between the intersections of Old Fort Road and 200 feet northeast of Post Siding Road. (PW)
Mayor Engen said, thank you, Ms. Rehbein. Anyone in the audience care to comment on any of the items on the consent agenda this evening? Seeing none, any discussion? Ms. Hellegaard?
Alderwoman Hellegaard said, I‘d like to…on the claims that we have for the $1.4 million, there‘s an item in there on page 14 for an ICLEI membership. I have a lot of constituents that I think might want to comment on that so could we pull that off so that the public might have an opportunity to talk about that?
Mayor Engen said, you‘d like to remove the claims item #2?
Alderwoman Hellegaard said, yes, it‘s for a $1,200 membership to ICLEI.
Mayor Engen said, okay. We‘ll pull the item #2 so we‘ll vote on items 1 and 3 through 9. Any discussion on those items? Seeing none, we‘ll have a roll call vote.
Upon a roll call vote, the vote on the amended consent agenda was as follows:
AYES: Childers, Haines, Hellegaard, Jaffe, Marler, Mitchell, Rye, Strohmaier, Walzer, Wiener, Wilkins, Wolken
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Motion carried: 12 Ayes, 0 Nays, 0 Abstain, 0 Absent
COMMENTS FROM CITY STAFF, AGENCIES, COMMISSIONS, AUTHORITIES, AND COMMUNITY FORUM - None
SPECIAL PRESENTATION - None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public hearing on an ordinance amending Title 6 Missoula Municipal Code entitled "Animals" repealing Chapters 6.02, 6.04, 6.09, 6.12, 6.16, 6.20 and 6.22, enacting Chapter 6.07 entitled "Animal Ordinance" and renaming Chapter 6.08 entitled "Dogs and Pet Shops" to "Pet Shops, Pet Sales and Boarding Kennels" to generally amend, recodify and update the City's regulations pertaining to animals, increase license fees and increase fines pertaining to violations. (Memo) (Parks and Recreation Costs Impacts per Animal Ordinance (dated 11/3/2011)) (PS&H) (PS&H 11/02/11)
City of Missoula City Council Minutes –November 7, 2011 - Page 4
Jim Carlson, Health Department, said, City-County Animal Control is part of the division I‘m responsible for. I‘ll go through just a brief summary of some of the changes we‘ll be considering at this public hearing. Why are the changes being considered? The animal control ordinances were developed over time and somewhat piecemealed. There are some outdated definitions, some outdated references, some provisions conflicted with other provisions. The result was confusion and some difficulty in administering and interpreting the ordinance and then, of course, it provides an opportunity to comment on options for dogs and leashes on conservation lands. I wanted to comment that we did receive a phone call today, and she may be here tonight, from someone who‘s an expert on the Disabilities Act, and pointed out that our definition of service animal is not current with the recently changed federal definition, and that would be something that the Council may want to consider including in the ordinance to make sure we‘re in full compliance and agreement with the Americans With Disabilities Act. Basically, service animal is now defined as a dog that‘s been individually trained to work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability. Other animals, whether wild or domestic, do not qualify. We have had some situations, I know at the Health Department, where there‘s been concern that people bring like a boa constrictor into a restaurant and claim it‘s a service animal. So, it‘s an appropriate change and I think it absolutely clarifies what those requirements are. We‘ll be talking tonight and considering changes in the activities that are allowed or disallowed on City conservation lands, in particular. I wanted to remind folks of the proposed definition of voice restraint. Currently people and it‘s proposed that people in some areas would continue to be allowed to have an animal, off leash, in the City on conservation lands, but under voice restraint. A definition of voice restraint is actually quite stringent. The animal has to be in your vision, has to be within 75 feet. You have to be able to effectively control and recall the dog at all times. If there is deer or fawns or other dogs running by, you should still be able to have enough control of that animal to call him. I‘ve owned five dogs. I‘m not sure that any of them could ever have met those requirements. The dog isn‘t being allowed to fight with other dogs or chase or harass wildlife and another addition to that proposed definition has been added that the dog isn‘t allowed to approach other people within…closer than five feet. Only two dogs would be allowed under voice restraint for any person. You must have a leash with you for each dog and the dog must respond to voice commands when called. We will, if the ordinance is passed as suggested, they must comply with posted signage and we will change signage on the entrances to conservation lands at appropriate points and dogs must also be on leash within 200 yards of the trailhead and at the trailhead. There are three options outlined in the ordinance. Option 1 is one that Parks and Rec and City-County Health feel that is possible to enforce with additional enforcement support from the Council. It would allow for voice restraint on City conservation lands including Mount Jumbo, North Hills, the City-owned portions of Mount Sentinel, Tower Street, conservation lands in the eastern portion of the Kim Williams Trail, and the eastern portion is essentially adjacent to the Grizzly Stadium. There‘s a gate there and from that point east. Dog parks and training areas that are posted by the Parks Land Manager would also be allowed to be on voice restraint. Leash would be required, however, on conservation lands in Option 1 and all options on the first 200 yards of the trail, the Mount Jumbo L Trail, the Mount Sentinel M Trail and the M Trail has always been leash-required. That property is owned by the University and their rules prevail in that sense. The M trail has been recently annexed so we haven‘t addressed that previously in ordinance. And then the North Hills Waterworks Trailhead on the entire ridgeline up the North Hills would be also leash-required to protect the rare plants grown in that area. Option 2 would be the same as Option 1 except to disallow or to allow dogs on voice restraint on the North Hills ridgeline. Option 3 in the proposed ordinance would provide for leash in all conservation lands areas. Okay. I wanted to point out that goats and honeybees are not being addressed in this particular draft. Essentially bees are not regulated in the City at the present time and goats are regulated as livestock. That essentially means that folks cannot have goats in the City except on parcels larger than an acre and where they meet a number of other requirements for keeping livestock. Other changes in the ordinance, there would be maximum six-foot leash length required in areas that are on trails, streets, alleys, paved roads and sidewalks. Formerly up to 16-foot leashes were allowed in all areas, however, there have been a number of conflicts, particularly in some of the heavier used trails, combination trails, bikeways between long leashes and other modes of travel. The third point here is actually incorrect. It‘s always been illegal to leave a dog tied to a light pole or bike rack tree or other object on public property. Fines have been increased in the ordinance by $25 and pet sales by private parties and parking lots and that sort of thing is proposed to become illegal. That is a new addition. A wildlife feeding ordinance remains unchanged. I have a couple of other comments. I would like to point out we‘ve got an email from Councilman Wiener today pointing out that he did ask that the section that deals with the illegality of City of Missoula City Council Minutes –November 7, 2011 - Page 5 leaving your dog on private property should include a requirement that it‘s what…you can do that with the permission of the property owner or occupant. That‘s found at 6.07.600 and finally the ordinance that was posted on-site incorrectly showed in 6.07.030 that the court may not suspend or defer imposition of any penalty provided by this section should not have been shown as struck out. That‘s been there for a number of years and the Public Health and Safety Committee voted to keep that language in there. So, it should be shown as not struck out. Ed Franceschina and myself will be available throughout the hearing and at the end to answer questions.
Mayor Engen said, thank you, Mr. Carlson, I appreciate that. And, with that, I will open the public hearing. Anyone in the audience care to comment on the proposed changes to the ordinance this evening? Anyone care to comment? Yes, ma‘am?
Quincie Albrecht said, I am a volunteer for the Animal Control Board but I‘m expressing only my personal opinions at this hearing tonight. I strongly support the addition of Missoula‘s animal ordinance of Chapter 6.08.447 which prohibits the sale of animals on roadsides, public right-of-ways and commercial parking lots. First, these sales are completely unregulated and promote amateur backyard pet breeding and possibly more unregulated puppy mill operations in Montana. The conditions in which animals are being kept and bred, as well as the health and degree of socialization of their offspring for sale, are unseen and unknown. A person buying a pet on the roadside may have no recourse if the animal purchased has health problems. I also believe making cute puppies and kittens available for sale on roadsides promotes impulse pet purchases. People frequent businesses on Reserve Street, for example, to buy household appliances, do some banking, eat a meal or pick up a new CD. The drive-by availability of cute animals undermines the serious consideration and the long-term responsibility that adopting and caring for an animal actually entails. Finally, just like the free to a good home give away puppies and kittens in the newspaper, roadside animal sales provide an outlet for pets that are not spayed or neutered and this is irresponsible. Animal Control, the Humane Society of Western Montana, area veterinarians and so many individual Missoulians work hard to shelter, care for, spay and neuter and adopt out the already many homeless animals in our community. I believe individuals who sell animals for profit and do not spay or neuter them first are counteracting all of this hard work and contributing to the pet overpopulation and homelessness problems. So, thank you for prohibiting the sale of animals on roadsides, public right-of- ways and commercial parking lots. Thank you.
Mayor Engen said, thank you, Ms. Albrecht. Anyone else care to comment this evening? Ms. Watson? If you hit the button please, ma‘am.
Alisa Watson said, I‘m here to support this ordinance.
Mayor Engen said, Ms. Watson, I might ask you to just raise the microphone a little bit.
Alisa Watson said, sure.
Mayor Engen said, thank you very much. Want to make sure we can hear you.
Alisa Watson said, thank you. I‘m here to support this ordinance because I know that there‘s nothing worse than being in a walker and getting trampled by a big dog who‘s not listening to its master and off his leash. And I know that it scares a lot of people who need to be able to use those trails that run by their homes and children and families with their little kids on their tricycle, you know. And I just really strongly suggest that if you pass this, that you give them the ability to enforce it, even if that means training volunteers in their appropriate way to handle it and training the citizens on the appropriate way to handle it because I can tell you a lot of owners do not like being asked to put their dog on a leash, no matter how nicely you may ask them to do so. And you have no recourse because you don‘t know where they live, you don‘t know their name and you may not know what type of dog it is, just the size and color. And so if this is passed, I want it to be able to be backed up. Thank you for your time today.
City of Missoula City Council Minutes –November 7, 2011 - Page 6
Mayor Engen said, thank you, Ms. Watson. Anyone else care to comment this evening? Any additional comment? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Are there questions from Council this evening? Mr. Wiener?
Alderman Wiener said, I have a number of questions. First one, I think Jim is probably the appropriate person to answer this. It has to do with…and a part of the…it looks like part of the old ordinance where it says that the animals barred from food service establishments portion, it says that you can‘t be…the animal can‘t be within 15 feet of an outdoor food service establishment and then it defines that as like carts and that kind of stuff which seems to like outlaw of walking the dog downtown in lots of places where there‘s sidewalk cafes or hot dog carts or anything like that.
Mayor Engen said, Mr. Carlson?
Jim Carlson, Health Department, said, I think technically that‘s true. Of course, when we‘re enforcing an ordinance of this nature, you know, we try to use a little common sense. That requirement is there to deal with situations like Farmers Markets and areas where there‘s a lot of food, perhaps children with food in their hands to avoid anything from dogs lifting their legs on food objects and at food service establishments to potential bites and misunderstandings about whose food is whose. So, yes, I think that‘s technically correct if you wanted to have us try to work on an amendment, I think that‘s possible but I don‘t think for the most part our staff has ever tried to win for us a well-leashed dog walking by a food stand without stopping is an issue at all but needs to be addressed.
Alderman Wiener said, it has resulted in Clark Fork River Market being forced to ban dogs entirely.
Jim Carlson, Health Department, said, that‘s correct and that was under our supervision and that‘s the very reason we had conflicts, complaints from citizens. The original market went through that same evolution many years ago and that‘s why the Council, at our recommendations, stepped in and made those changes because food items were getting contaminated and there were problems, especially with small children and carrying ice cream cones, things like that, between animals and humans. So, there‘s a good reason for the ordinance. I‘m just saying that in some situations I don‘t think we‘ll be looking to enforce it where there is no problem caused by somebody walking by on a sidewalk, however, as I said, you know, we could look at possible amendments to make sure that doesn‘t happen.
Alderman Wiener said, yeah, I mean I‘d prefer not to have an ordinance that‘s written for selective enforcement. I‘ve voted against things for that cause before. The next question that I had had to do with the multiple dog permit and why it was two dogs and then I had questions about the appeal process there and cause for losing that if you have more than two dogs.
Jim Carlson, Health Department, said, well, the multiple dog permit was put in place, as I recall, to prevent people from having three, four, five, six dogs without having any sort of review or comment by the neighbors. That requirement has been there quite some time and, you know, a multiple dog permit is required for more than two dogs. At some point in the past, the Council felt that was the appropriate number to start going through a more extensive review and hearing comments from neighbors.
Alderman Wiener said, do you know how many of those there are?
Jim Carlson, Health Department, said, I would have to defer that to Ed.
Mayor Engen said, Mr. Franceschina?
Ed Franceschina, Animal Control Supervisor, said, right now there‘s six.
Alderman Wiener said, in the whole City?
Ed Franceschina, Animal Control Supervisor, said, that‘s correct.
City of Missoula City Council Minutes –November 7, 2011 - Page 7
Alderman Wiener said, have we ever revoked one?
Ed Franceschina, Animal Control Supervisor, said, absolutely. If it‘s revoked, they have the option within 30 days to bring this forward to you, the City Council, to be reinstated, but we‘ve only had one. We‘ve had quite a few that have been rejected but only one and that‘s been in the past, that‘s been almost before my time, one has been revoked.
Alderman Wiener said, I think it is…is it a new element of the ordinance that that could be revoked for the single barking dog complaint? That looked like it was new language to me.
Ed Franceschina, Animal Control Supervisor, said, it is. Yes, it is. It‘s been strengthened to include that, yes.
Alderman Wiener said, I‘m not sure we want to hear appeals of people having their dogs taken away. I think those are the two questions that I had.
Mayor Engen said, any other questions this evening? Ms. Mitchell?
Alderwoman Mitchell said, so when we have a question from a constituent and we know that when people complain about barking dogs, are they required to disclose…is the complainant‘s name required to be disclosed to the dog owner currently and how do you handle that right now?
Ed Franceschina, Animal Control Supervisor, said, okay. Certainly if an officer hears a barking dog continually, we can be the source of information. However, the City and County combined only have four officers to cover the 2,600 square miles of the City and County of Missoula. We do not have any night- time shifts of Animal Control officers at that level of staffing. We do cover daytime shifts, seven days a week. Most barking complaints surround nighttime and sleeping hours, although certainly there are barking complaints during the day, in order to document a violation we ask that people keep a log of the time that the barking occurs and identify the dog and that sort of thing and be willing to testify in court. Under the Montana Constitution and Montana law, any information that we have, with the exception of medical records and employee performance records and occasionally a criminal investigation, are public information. So, any information that a public agency has, the public has a right to ask for it and get it. So, the answer to your question is sometimes if people want a law enforced, they have to help us in terms of documenting a violation of the law and when we know who the complaintant is, we are required to give out that information otherwise we would be in violation of the law.
Mayor Engen said, Mr. Wilkins?
Alderman Wilkins said, well, my question is going to be for three entities so I‘m going to start with Park and Rec. The changes that are coming down here in these options, to you which one is the least expensive to implement and how are you going to come up with some money to implement any changes like signs on trails, etc.?
Mayor Engen said, Ms. Gaukler?
Donna Gaukler, Parks and Recreation, said, thank you. On Friday, I forwarded to Council members and updated a budget summary that I think broke it down the way you requested on Wednesday. So, Option 1, which includes current practice plus the North Hills ridgeline, we estimate approximately $1,300 for signage and a one-time education campaign on public open space. The current option is…or the current practice is the way all the open spaces are currently signed and so no direct increases. Option 3, which will place all dogs on a leash, all places, all times we estimate about $11,300 for signage. With Option 3 I‘m not sure which things Parks would not do. As you know, from the last three or four budget cycles, we continue to reduce budgets and at the same time try to maintain a certain level of service that‘s acceptable to the public, so I do not have an answer where $11,000 would come from and $1,300 on adding North Hills that means something else doesn‘t get done but at least it‘s not as significant as the $11,000 figure. City of Missoula City Council Minutes –November 7, 2011 - Page 8
Alderman Wilkins said, thank you. So, I guess Mr. Carlson…so if, let‘s say Option 3 gets passed, that‘s going to mean more work for the Animal Control. Are there any plans to get another Animal Control officer or where would that money come from?
Jim Carlson, Health Department, said, well, first of all it‘s important to understand that at the current level of staffing, we‘re not able to, after we respond to our legal mandate of dealing with bite calls and I think the common sense high priority response to animals in danger, for example animals left in hot cars, backs of pickups without water, that are hot and those sorts of things and other high priority calls, that we‘re not able to do a good job of getting out on the trails and along the river and that sort of thing and some of the parks as much as we should, and making sure the ordinance as it currently stands is adequately enforced. We have not added an officer since I believe 1994 and the City‘s grown about 26% since then. Without additional help, financial help from the Council, if we require leash in all areas, certainly we don‘t have good compliance in some of the most important trails in the center of the City right now. I think it‘s a safe bet to say that there will be quite a few violations out in those conservation lands. The answer to where the money comes from in terms of enforcing a City-only ordinance would be up to the Council and the Administration, but certainly we don‘t feel we‘re doing an adequate job right now with the resources available of enforcing leash laws in the City on some of the very busy trails.
Alderman Wilkins said, so, one more, please. The Administration, I guess Bruce or the Mayor…Bruce probably the same question to you, Bruce, if we pass more ordinances here are we going to increase our budget to cover some of these things to be able to enforce it or is that in the plans, in the works or…?
Mayor Engen said, I‘ll take that one, Mr. Wilkins.
Alderman Wilkins said, okay, thank you.
Mayor Engen said, depending on what Council does here and our interest in actually enforcing whatever Council enacts this evening, we‘ll have to take that into consideration for fiscal year 2013 now. So, we‘d consider it as part of our next budget cycle which will begin before we know it.
Alderman Wilkins said, I realize that. I would like to make one comment if I may or I‘ll wait until later.
Mayor Engen said, would you mind waiting until we get questions out of the way first, sir?
Alderman Wilkins said, okay, thank you.
Mayor Engen said, thank you. I have, in order, Mr. Wiener and Ms. Marler?
Alderman Wiener said, Ed, one other question which was…maybe this is for Marty. Typically when we set fees we set them in resolution rather than ordinance. I noticed the fee amounts are set in here. Is there any reason not to do them in a resolution that‘s a companion to this? Looks like we could change the language tonight in the ordinance and adopt a resolution before it goes into effect.
Mayor Engen said, Ms. Rehbein?
City Clerk Rehbein said, yes, some fees that are set in ordinance and some that are done in resolution. I know a lot of the business licensing fees, for example, are done via ordinance. Either is appropriate. Whatever you choose.
Mayor Engen said, okay. Mr. Wiener?
Alderman Wiener said, it‘s not a question anymore.
Mayor Engen said, okay. Ms. Marler?
City of Missoula City Council Minutes –November 7, 2011 - Page 9
Alderwoman Marler said, I have a question for Mr. Carlson and then a question for Ms. Gaukler, and I wonder if you could put up the first slide about voice restraint if that‘s possible. There‘s more to my question. It‘s not just...can you put up that slide? There. What is voice restraint? First question, was this included in our current animal ordinance? There is a description of what is restraint?
Ed Franceschina, Animal Control Supervisor, said, yes, with the exception of the five-foot…keeping the animal five feet from…
Alderwoman Marler said, so we have already had a rule regarding voice restraint on some places. How much have we currently spent per year to enforce the voice restraint rules that are already on the books?
Jim Carlson, Health Department, said, we don‘t have numbers with regards to cost. Certainly, the officers have gone up on some of the access areas to Waterworks and Mount Jumbo to enforce and give people information in those areas. It‘s something that happens fairly intermittently because often the officers are busy doing other higher priority calls in response to dispatch.
Alderwoman Marler said, right. So not very much right now is spent in the current budget to enforce a current rule. Is that an accurate answer?
Jim Carlson, Health Department, said, right.
Alderwoman Marler said, okay, thanks. My next question is for Donna and I appreciate that you submitted this memo about increased funding needs for the various options. I am trying to find out for Option 3 you said Option 3 which is all dogs on a leash, no voice restraint on conservation lands and that‘s $11,312 for signage and a one-time education campaign. And we won‘t talk about the officer for now. FYI, I support more officers for open space and parks because I know that there are issues there but I‘m looking at what this was based on. It says there are 64 conservation trailheads and it‘s based on $100 per trailhead to put a sign and a post and then mutt mitts? Why are mutt mitts included in new…what is the cost of new mutt mitts have to do with whether or not we change voice restraint versus leashes? I mean isn‘t it already a rule that you have to pick up your dog‘s waste and…
Donna Gaukler, Parks and Recreation, said, it is already a rule.
Alderwoman Marler said, so why is that included in the $11,000?
Donna Gaukler, Parks and Recreation, said, the mutt mitts are not in the $11,000. They are in the $84,594 for ongoing so if you go to the front page of the memo, one of the things that Council asked me to do last Wednesday is give us direct cost as it relates to just changing, you know, each option in the regulation and then give us a cost of what it would take for increased compliance. So, what I did for Options 1, 2 and 3 is I just put in the cost of sign changes, sign additions and labor. And then the mutt mitts, ongoing programming, police officer I put in the bottom part of the memo and would note that those budget enhancements would be important to gain increase compliance with any of the options you choose.
Alderwoman Marler said, so that the mutt mitts are not related to Option 1, 2 or 3 related to …?
Donna Gaukler, Parks and Recreation, said, correct. It‘s about increased compliance with that waste removal.
Alderwoman Marler said, with all dog-related things. I guess what I‘m getting at, and I‘m trying to phrase it as a question, and it is a question because I don‘t really understand how the second page relates to the first page. Maybe you can explain it. I don‘t see it on the slide. It just seems like $100 for a sign and a post at each of the trailheads seems like a lot. I mean it seems like you need an 8 by 10 sign or something to put up there and I can‘t think of any trailheads at any of the 64 conservation lands, and I think I‘ve been to all of them, where there‘s not already a fence and a post that you can detach something to. City of Missoula City Council Minutes –November 7, 2011 - Page 10
Donna Gaukler, Parks and Recreation, said, unfortunately, at a lot of the sites the signage is incorporated with the map and so it includes a mix of replacing all of those maps that it‘s included with because of where the language is at. So it could vary. I did not have our staff itemize every single site in this specific kind of sign and whether a map had to go with it as well.
Alderwoman Marler said, and the universal 4 by 4 dog-on-a-leash signs, 164 of those at seven and a half dollars each, those are just to be peppered around the…
Donna Gaukler, Parks and Recreation, said, throughout the system, yes.
Alderwoman Marler said, yeah. Okay…
Donna Gaukler, Parks and Recreation, said, both open space and trails.
Alderwoman Marler said, okay. I mean and…yeah, and some of the trails that are included are ones that already have leash law but people aren‘t following it. Right? So that would be one of the things that‘s for existing laws.
Donna Gaukler, Parks and Recreation, said, correct.
Alderwoman Marler said, I guess my question is does the $11,000 and some dollars is that really going to be the cost of going to Option 3?
Donna Gaukler, Parks and Recreation, said, those are the costs, when I asked the staff to sit down and to make sure that we‘re communicating because, quite frankly and whether I agree with it or not citizens tell me they‘re confused even about leash laws in town.
Alderwoman Marler said, well, I hear you, people are confused, yeah. People think there‘s no leash law downtown. People have told me that.
Donna Gaukler, Parks and Recreation, said, and there‘s also confusion about where the Kim Williams Trail is and many do not understand the separation between the riverfront trails or on MacDonald Trails from the Kim Williams Trails. And so to make sure all of the signage is correct throughout the system this is our closest estimate. I‘m not telling you it might not come on at 10 or 14 instead but we try to itemize the sites
Alderwoman Marler said, okay. I guess my question…my point is I‘ll save the comment portion of that for the comment portion.
Alderman Childers said, so would it be fair to say then that the only no additional cost option would be if we change our ordinance to coincide with current practice?
Donna Gaukler, Parks and Recreation, said, at current practice, all of the signage in the system is pretty accurate.
Alderman Childers said, so is that…that would be yes?
Donna Gaukler, Parks and Recreation, said, yes, I think so if I understood your question, yes.
Alderman Childers said, so if I said that puts us in a box, that would be a comment so I won‘t say that. Would it be fair to…I‘m sorry, Mayor. Would it be fair to say that enforcing the voice restraint rule would cost at least as much as enforcing a leash law?
Donna Gaukler, Parks and Recreation, said, I think it would be fair to say that if we, as a community, wish to see a higher level of compliance with any animal ordinance regulation we probably would need to invest in enhancing that compliance. City of Missoula City Council Minutes –November 7, 2011 - Page 11
Alderman Childers said, would it be fair to say that was a yes?
Donna Gaukler, Parks and Recreation, said, it‘s a yes in that even if we stay with…yeah, current practice change and regulations, it all affects compliance and compliance has impacts if we want compliance it impacts budget.
Alderman Childers said, thank you and just one more question along the same lines is…would you say that understanding a leash law is more difficult or less difficult than understanding a voice restraint law?
Donna Gaukler, Parks and Recreation, said, I think understanding of laws and interest in complying with laws are two different things.
Alderman Childers said, I don‘t think I‘m asking you if they are two different things. I‘m asking you whether voice restraint as defined here is as easy to understand as keep your dog on a leash at all times?
Mayor Engen said, Mr. Childers‘ rhetorical question, I believe, Ms. Gaukler, I‘ll go ahead and take that one for you.
Donna Gaukler, Parks and Recreation, said, sure.
Alderman Childers said, you could say that. Sorry.
Mayor Engen said, no. Any other questions? Ms. Hellegaard?
Alderwoman Hellegaard said, if, Jim Carlson please. If I understood Donna right, she‘s saying she doesn‘t have the revenue right now to enforce our current ordinance. I‘ve heard you talk about our priority, the bites, the animal endanger are you having the same difficulty? I mean do you have a guess to what…to just enforce the current ordinance, what you might need?
Jim Carlson, Health Department, said, certainly and I submitted a budget that dealt with both the wildlife ordinance and the cost of adding an additional officer that would be solely for enforcement of City requirements inside the City limits. Last Wednesday I wasn‘t able to attend because I lost my voice that morning but those numbers are there. There‘s one-time costs associated with getting a new vehicle and hiring an officer and then ongoing cost for just that officer. I believe it was, the one officer plus a new vehicle was on the order of eighty-some thousand dollars and then there is another budget for the enforcement of the wildlife bear issue.
Alderwoman Hellegaard said, follow-up? So, is that to enforce the current ordinance, the $80,000 or is that to do the new one that we‘re talking about tonight.
Jim Carlson, Health Department, said, well, that would be an additional officer just for the City and we would use that at what direction of the Council and the Administration of the City to deal with prioritizing those issues you guys feel are most important. But certainly at the present time we don‘t have adequate staffing to deal with the new ordinance much less additional ones. Certainly, I don‘t think there is an expectation that just like in traffic law we don‘t get 100% compliance with traffic laws that you will ever get 100% compliance with leash laws. But we do know that if we spend some more time out on the trails and in the conservation lands and in the parks, that people will at least understand that there are laws that are being enforced to some degree and that there is a potential of ending up with a ticket at some point if people don‘t comply.
Mayor Engen said, additional questions? Alright, seeing none, Mr. Strohmaier?
Alderman Strohmaier said, Mayor Engen, I would like to move the ordinance with Option 2 at 6.07.618. Option 2 again is current practice and I would also like to make two additional changes. One to adopt the City of Missoula City Council Minutes –November 7, 2011 - Page 12 revised definition of Service Animal at 6.07.020 that staff mentioned earlier and also to incorporate Jason Wiener‘s language at 6.07.600 as described earlier, and I‘d like to speak to the motion.
Mayor Engen said, Mr. Strohmaier?
Alderman Strohmaier said, so this has been a marathon since this originally went back to committee. I think over two years ago, it languished for quite a while, was worked on quite a while by staff and we‘ve spent all of this summer and now into the fall and almost on the cusp of winter talking about our animal ordinance. So, what you have here before you tonight is something that‘s been in the works an awful long time. In terms of the Option 2 that I‘m moving, whatever you think about the ability to control dogs by voice or whatever you think about the ecological impacts that dogs might have upon sensitive plant species on Missoula‘s conservation lands, I think it is clear, at least it‘s clear to me, that we simply do not have the resources to try to enforce an ordinance more stringent than what we currently have on the books relative to voice restraint. I think that the option that I‘m moving here does have adequate provision such that if there is at some point in the future, as the provision states, problems relative to human safety, protection of wildlife or sensitive plant species staff can intervene in those instances. And I would encourage staff to monitor how the ordinance is working and I would certainly encourage down the road that we look seriously at simply augmenting existing…augmenting our enforcement capacity to address what is currently on the books before we contemplate anything much more stringent. So with that, I will leave it at that. Certainly, we have a lot more to do education-wise within the City relative to the animal ordinance but I think this is a solid piece of work and a much improved ordinance over the cobble together version that we currently have on the books.
Mayor Engen said, and Mr. Strohmaier‘s motion is in order. Is there discussion on the motion? Ms. Walzer?
Alderwoman Walzer said, I‘d like to offer a couple of friendly amendments. I think there…one was I think missed in the text that we have. It‘s involving the definition of a nuisance cat so it‘s 6.07.810 Definitions (F) Nuisance Cat means 1) any cat that is free roaming, deleting ―and is not altered.‖ I believe…I thought we had stricken that so that any cat, even if it‘s fixed, is if it‘s free roaming it‘s considered a nuisance cat. And then No. 5, any cat which defecates, add ―or urinates‖ on any public sidewalk, etc. and I don‘t remember discussing No. 6 but any cat that whines calls or makes other disturbing noises in excessive, continuous or untimely fashion, I‘d like to strike ―untimely.‖ It seems a little odd so I‘d rather have it say ―any cat that whines, calls or makes other disturbing noises in an excessive or continuous fashion.‖
Mayor Engen said, Mr. Strohmaier?
Alderman Strohmaier said, yeah, I‘ll accept those amendments.
Mayor Engen said, and I have in order Mr. Wilkins, Mr. Childers.
Alderman Wilkins said, well, I‘ll support the motion that‘s on the floor. My biggest concern is enforcing what we‘ve got on the books now. I mean, I‘m on Animal Control side. I think they do a good job with the limited resources that they have. And, you know, I think most of you know I have a pet project in my neighborhood that we call the ―Duck Pond.‖ Constantly people are coming up to that pond and unsnapping the leash of their dog and letting them run and constantly we used to call Animal Control but by the time Animal Control could get there the offense was done and over. I even asked people would you please put your dog on the leash, especially during baby duck season when all the babies are around. I‘ve been threatened. I‘ve been yelled at. I‘ve been…had to call the police one time. You know, I don‘t know why people do what they do. I‘ve owned dogs all my life and I‘ve…only time my dog is not on a leash is when I‘m in my property in Lincoln, Montana otherwise my dog is on a leash. I had an incident in the neighborhood by Lewis and Clark School two years ago where this dog jumped on an eighty-year-old woman and she fell and hit her hip on the curb and broke her hip. I mean we definitely have a problem in this town with dogs that aren‘t on a leash. Like I said, I‘ve owned dogs all my life. I‘ve had some that would do most of the time for voice control but there was always an incident when every dog, even though how well-mannered it was, that it wouldn‘t listen to me at times. So, I have a real City of Missoula City Council Minutes –November 7, 2011 - Page 13 problem with this voice control. I don‘t think it works all the time and I‘d have to see it to believe it but I‘ll support what‘s on…the motion that‘s on the floor right now because it‘s just what we‘ve always kind of had and there are changes in there that made some other things better.
Alderman Childers said, thanks. I do not support the voice control piece. I support the rest of the ordinance. I think it‘s all a pretty good piece of work but I have not understood why we have an ordinance that‘s not understandable. You can‘t enforce an ordinance that people don‘t understand and that‘s what the voice control piece is and even if they do understand it, dogs don‘t. Dogs do what they do and they do what they do, do well. So, I am going to propose Option 3 and pursuant to a discussion I had earlier today with the Mayor, I will put a piece into it that would make it possible for the City Council to say, well, some days you can go up there and have voice control for your dogs but most of the time if you‘re in the City‘s property or the conservation lands, have your dog on a leash. You know what that means. We can enforce that at least as well as we enforce voice restraint, which we can‘t actually enforce at all because not only don‘t people know how to work that, I don‘t believe we do either. So, here‘s my proposed language. It now inserts between off leash and areas in designated the words ―and at times‖ so it reads: allowing dogs to be off leash in areas and at times designated by the City Council and allowing the Parks and Recreation Department to close and post any‖ and I took out voice restraint because I don‘t see any point limiting the Park Department to that, ―allowing the department to close and post any area to protect wildlife or sensitive plant communities or while work is occurring in the area.‖ That is my proposal for an amendment to the motion and just a small statement about the amendment, which is to say the only way to not have to put in signage is to go with current practice which doesn‘t comply with current law. I don‘t think that‘s a particularly good practice. We shouldn‘t be trying to do that. The other thing is that enforcing something people understand is likely to be easier than trying to enforce something that they can‘t understand. So, if we send somebody out once or twice a year, whatever we‘ve been doing which hasn‘t been much, and they say, you know, you have to have that dog on a leash, that‘s pretty easy to understand whereas if they say, you know, you need to have that dog under voice control at 75 feet, can‘t let it get within five feet of somebody. You can‘t do that. That doesn‘t make any sense. So, thus my amendment.
Mayor Engen said, Mr. Childers has made a motion to amend and so there‘s no confusion, Mr. Childers and I did have a conversation. This is not my recommendation however. On the motion to amend, Mr. Wiener?
Alderman Wiener said, I‘d like Parks, at some point, to come up and explain how the current practice became the current practice because I think you made it sound like it‘s some sort of arbitrary and capricious thing and my understanding is it‘s based on some well tested practices and I think we should understand what those are, how current practice became current practice. I‘m inclined not to support the amendment and I don‘t know if the rest of the body will agree with me or not but I would at least…I‘ll let you know that if there is…if the motion to amend passes, I‘m also going to make a motion to table this for a week, harkening back to the last time we had this ordinance come in front of us and we switched it up on a night and then we had a huge uproar and a veto that resulted. People ought to know what‘s going to come out of the body and I think if we‘re going to change the current practice, we probably need to let it simmer. But if we can why is the current practice what it is?
Mayor Engen said, Ms. Gaukler?
Donna Gaukler, Parks and Recreation, said, current practice has a long history dating back to some dog incidents, I want to say back in 2004 with a bite outside Chief Charlo School, when the Park Board and the Animal Control Board were asked to look at options on doing a better job of managing and enforcing the ordinance. At that point, the Parks and Recreation Department and the Health Department and Animal Control went through a fairly lengthy public process with neighborhoods, asking their opinion and we suggested different parks in areas, different kinds of rules and regulations and the current practice that is being used seemed to garner a good level of support. One of the reasons that we went to voice restraint on conservation lands is certainly that‘s how a majority of citizens were using it. From my perspective my main concern was with trying to have and provide more resources to make sure we had a greater level of compliance on City trails and in City developed parks. At that time, so about seven years City of Missoula City Council Minutes –November 7, 2011 - Page 14 ago, we were really struggling with any compliance in our busiest parks, picnic areas, playgrounds and commuter trails, and so one of the things we discussed with Animal Control is if there‘s a place to tell people that they could potentially go that would be helpful. And I was trying to work with Animal Control to find a way to gain greater levels of enforcement, a greater presence. And about a year or two after that we started our sting weeks which were really education weeks with extra compliance, we were able to garner some support from City Council for overtime police officers to get a little bit more support. We‘ve since lost that in the last three years. And then the last time the ordinance came before Council, as Councilman Wiener just explained, it was vetoed and so we needed something to tell the public about what we were going to do. Certainly, it wasn‘t just parks or just animal control making a determination. We did bring that before you with information that in order to move forward we needed to tell the media and the public something and so what we told them was how we would go about in enforcement.
Mayor Engen said, Mr. Carlson?
Jim Carlson, Health Department, said, certainly from our perspective everything Donna said is correct. I would also add that during the conservation bonds issue when people that had been using those lands to exercise animals and that sort of thing asked well, if these are purchased by the City and eventually become annexed, will the leash law apply and there were some discussions about allowing that practice to continue with certain conditions. So, some of that practice dates all the way back to them. The other thing I want to emphasize is giving people an option to exercise their dogs. Some people aren‘t able…have certain breeds that need to move and run and generally dogs that are under two years old need a lot more exercise than can be given to them by somebody my age on a six-foot leash. And, of course, there is no leash law outside the City limits but this also gives an opportunity for that animal to get his needed exercise on lands that are adjacent to the City and now part of the City.
Mayor Engen said, thank you, Mr. Carlson. On the motion to amend. Ms. Marler?
Alderwoman Marler said, let me start by saying that I really approve of or I really appreciate rather all the work that went into this by the Public Safety Committee. I absolutely support Ed‘s proposal. I have a few things to say about it. Currently we have a rule on the books. People will tell me that we don‘t have a no- leash law; we have a voice restraint law and there‘s a law. Well, it‘s not enforced. People don‘t understand it. It‘s kind of a joke for lack of a better word. I know a lot of people with dogs who take them on open space and a few of them have really well behaved dogs that are actually under voice restraint and they understand what it is. Most of the time, no, not so much. So we have this current rule; it‘s completely not enforced. I‘ve never seen or heard of it being enforced. So saying that we shouldn‘t pass a leash law because we can‘t enforce it is not a valid argument in my opinion. If we have a leash law, at least it‘s easy to understand. We can use peer pressure. Currently if I‘m out running on open space and someone‘s dog jumps on me, I can‘t say anything like you‘re supposed to have your dog on a leash because they don‘t have to have their dog on a leash. If I tell them you‘re not supposed to let your dog jump on me they say, well, it‘s, you know, it‘s friendly. You know, people don‘t understand and I‘m going to come back to that. So if we go to a clear leash law, as Ed was getting to with his long rhetorical question with Ms. Gaukler, at least it‘s easy to understand. Regarding the estimate for $11,000 for new signs if we go to Option 3, I understand we need some new signage but I don‘t think it‘s going to cost $11,000 upfront. I want to be really clear that I support both Animal Control and Parks in needing a lot more funding, especially Animal Control you‘re really understaffed, you‘re really underfunded. You can‘t do what is on the books for you to do and my understanding is that Council has expressed interest in hearing enhanced funding requests from Animal Control but because of the budget being what it is for the past few years, it just never…it‘s like disallowed. Any of the departments are not allowed to bring budget enhancements so that‘s too bad. And Donna is absolutely right even though I don‘t like the $11,000 for new signage I think that she‘s absolutely correct in saying that we need to ramp up education if we want people to have better…if we want to have enforcement of any of the rules, whether it‘s a voice restraint rule or an actual leash rule, we need people to understand it and have it be enforced, and that will cost money. And I do think that if it‘s important to the community, we need to find that money. I‘m trying to keep it succinct here. I spend a lot of time on conservation lands, not…for people who don‘t know me my job requires me to be on conservation lands a lot and I enjoy being on conservation lands a lot. But it‘s very confusing and it‘s very emotional and the last time this came up the majority of Council voted to not City of Missoula City Council Minutes –November 7, 2011 - Page 15 have voice restraint rules on open space and then the next day the Mayor vetoed that rule. And then a few weeks later I was downtown and a friend of mine‘s dog jumped up on me and I said, well, don‘t mind the leash law there, friend. And she said, oh, I thought the Mayor vetoed the leash law, meaning for the whole City. I mean, it‘s just confusing. People…it‘s just confusing. People don‘t understand what‘s expected. And so please, colleagues on Council, please for people‘s enjoyment of open space, I would really like us to go to this more simple form of dog control. It‘s safer. I think people‘s enjoyment of open space is more important than dogs‘ enjoyment of open space. We have a lot of national forest land around town where people can go and have their dog off-leash, a lot of it. And the last thing I had to add on my comments is that if you‘re going to get a dog that needs a lot of exercise, please research your dog breed. If you can‘t keep up with your dog, don‘t get a Border Collie if you can‘t run it around, you know. You might be more of a pug kind of a person if you can‘t get it out to forest service land. So thank you. Thank you for letting me make my comments. This is something that affects me almost daily and I appreciate the chance to vote on this. And thank you for making the amendment which I‘ll support.
Mayor Engen said, on the motion to amend. I have Mr. Jaffe, Mr. Strohmaier, Mr. Haines and Mr. Childers.
Alderman Jaffe said, I actually wish to speak to other items so I‘ll yield on this one.
Mayor Engen said, okay, we‘ll circle back to you. Mr. Strohmaier?
Alderman Strohmaier said, I will not support the amendment for two reasons. One, over the course of months of deliberating on this and I should say frankly it would have been nice to have heard some of these suggestions and what I don‘t see is a particularly simple amendment. It would have been nice to have heard some of this much earlier in the process. But my two reasons are, one, the majority of the constituents who I represent and who have taken the time to contact me have proposed something akin to Option 2 which is what I originally proposed and moved today. And, secondly, I just do not see your amendment, Ed, as a particularly more simple or eloquent either on the face of it or enforcement-wise than what is in Option 2. So, for both those reasons, I will not support the amendment.
Mayor Engen said, Mr. Haines on the motion to amend.
Alderman Haines said, I will support the amendment such as it is. I may think over it when we get to…if it passes, to the final vote here but I agree with Marilyn and I agree with Ed. I‘ve been, a couple of times in my life, I‘ve been absolutely terrified by dogs when I was running on public lands in the City and I won‘t put up with that any longer. In fact, at one point I went home and I was so hot headed. I thought because the guy told me that there was no reason his dogs wouldn‘t bother me and I was cornered to the point where all I could see was a row of teeth. Don‘t tell me they were friendly, they wouldn‘t hurt me. I won‘t put up with that. I thought of some extreme measures. Fortunately, the market place produced an item called bear spray and I won‘t run on public trails now without using that and I won‘t hesitate to use it if I feel my life is threatened or I‘m subject to injury. Dogs need to be on leash. The current practice is a joke. I don‘t think people understand it and voice restraint is really a joke. A couple of times the owner was screaming bloody murder for their dog to stop and I thought I was going to be severely injured and they got there in time to grab the doggone mutt by the hair and hang onto it. I won‘t put up with that. I just won‘t. So, where I‘m at is it‘s all dogs on leash to get my vote and in the meantime I will take steps to protect myself when I‘m on public land doing things that I have a right to do and I feel threatened by a dog.
Mayor Engen said, and, Mr. Childers?
Alderman Childers said, so, during deliberations in committee I believe I made it quite clear that I oppose voice control and that it doesn‘t, in my estimation and that apparent estimation of people who have tried to have programs that governed it, doesn‘t work. If our goal is excellent compliance, the best way to achieve that is to not have a rule. And if that‘s what we want, you know, I suggest we just institute that and let free reins rule. In my amendment, in part at least against my better judgment, I put in a piece that said at times designated by the City Council people can take their dogs and do the same thing they‘re City of Missoula City Council Minutes –November 7, 2011 - Page 16 doing now. And the governance of that voice control would be exactly the same I think as it is today, which is basically little to none. So I think that‘s reasonable. The reason we are where we are, arbitrary and capricious, I wouldn‘t go that far but I will say that I served on the committee that worked up the last ordinance that the Mayor vetoed and I can tell you that there were people who favored letting dogs run free and there were people who favored controlling dogs, and the ones who favored controlling dogs control them with a physical restrain, that‘s a leash. There were some who wanted to simply keep their dogs down to six feet. I said no I don‘t see that as reasonable, you know, we need to have at least extensible leashes and so we have what we have. I think that was in the ordinance. The Mayor saw that as draconian, I guess, and vetoed that, didn‘t go back to the ordinance as it existed, the Mayor instituted what we have today, which is a policy, a practice that we put signage up to explain to people. So, we have signage that we put up to explain a practice. It doesn‘t comply with the ordinance that currently exists and now we‘re being asked to change the ordinance so it complies with the policy that was put in contrary to the existing ordinance. So, you know, I don‘t want to call anything arbitrary and capricious. I think some thought goes into everything but I don‘t see it. So, who do we serve? We serve people that want to use the land that we‘ve purchased with their money and be free of being hassled by other people and other people‘s dogs. And we have people who won‘t go out without bear spray and I don‘t think that‘s reasonable to have to have bear spray to fend off other people‘s dogs. We have people who have those dogs and think they should be allowed to run free because, you know, these dogs need to be able to run. It‘s good for them. Well, yeah, and it‘s good for deer and it‘s not so good for deer to run from dogs until the deer is exhausted but, you know, that‘s Marilyn‘s bailiwick, not mine. We have the people that walk their dogs on leashes and I‘ve been reading that dogs on leashes are I don‘t know, vicious compared with dogs that are off leash. I don‘t quite understand that but that‘s what I‘ve read. So, we have different bunches of people. And the ones that have dogs that are off leash, they‘re able to do whatever they want without worrying about other folks. And the ones who have dogs that are on-leash they are not able to do what they want without worrying about other folks because other folks have dogs and other folks‘ dogs are going to come up and, I don‘t know, play with them, jump on them, eat them, who knows what they‘re going to do? And that‘s the thing and the ones with no dogs they just get, you know, the leavings. I don‘t think that‘s fair. I think we have a whole lot of people, we need to serve all of them and the way to let the people with dogs utilize a trail in a good way is to let them have their leashes, and I think they should have long leashes. I think that‘s great except when there‘s a lot of people around, sure, that makes sense too. So, I think leashes are good. I think that they help all of the different categories of people and so, you know, that‘s my position. And as far as the time allowance, I was thinking, well, fine, if the Council wants to have a day every week when the people with the free range dogs can roam free and the people who don‘t like dogs have to stay out of the woods, well, I guess the teddy bears can have their picnic that day.
Mayor Engen said, so, since we‘ve been talking about vetoes here a little bit, what I appreciate about the motion that Mr. Strohmaier made this evening is that it reflects a policy that is largely a public practice. I will tell you if I were to operate from the politics of personal preference, I have two dogs, if I let them off their leashes, I would never see them again. I think they like me but there is nothing like voice control in this circumstance. And I can tell you that makes me absolutely nuts when I‘m on any public land and someone approaches me with a dog that is clearly not under control and sometimes that happens almost with complete disregard for anyone else. It makes me nuts. It makes me feel unsafe. Actually, I worry about my dogs as well. If this were all up to me and I were ruler of the planet, every dog would be on a leash. I serve a lot of people who have an expectation that somewhere on the public land that they‘ve invested in as well that they have some opportunity to walk their dogs, reasonably, safely, off a leash. I think if we propose an alternative to this, that turns a switch off on one day or another or one time or another, we create additional confusion. In a world where folks don‘t pay attention to the leash law that‘s in place at trailheads they‘re not going to pay any attention to Tuesday, from noon to 2 or whatever the variation is. There‘s a balance here. I think that we can engage in relatively strict or at least…I think we can get more compliance in public parks. I think we can make it very clear through education and some effort that there are lots of places where you‘re going to have your dogs on leash and if you don‘t, there‘s going to be a problem. And then, I think there are some places where we simply concede there are going to be dogs off leash. And then I get to make a choice as the person whose dog is never going to get off a leash and who is bothered in some cases by dogs off leash, I get to make a choice whether I‘m going to hit that particular part of the North Hills or Mount Jumbo. Right? I get to make that choice. So what I City of Missoula City Council Minutes –November 7, 2011 - Page 17 think Mr. Strohmaier‘s effort here and the produce of staff‘s effort is to find some balance and give folks with really varied opinions about leashes or no leashes and voice control or no voice control, choices within their community that we can call, more or less, live with, and I think a big part of this is about providing some consistency. And I think and ordinance that meets a policy that meets a practice makes a bunch of sense. On Mr. Childers‘ motion to amend, further discussion? Seeing none, I‘m sorry, Ms. Rye?
Alderwoman Rye said, pass.
Mayor Engen said, alright, seeing no additional discussion, anyone in the audience care to comment on Mr. Childers‘ motion to amend? Seeing none, we‘ll have a voice vote on the motion.
AMENDMENT
Alderman Childers made a motion to propose Option 3 with the following change to read: Allowing dogs to be off leash in areas and at times designated by the City Council and allowing the Parks and Recreation Department to close and post any area to protect wildlife or sensitive plant communities or while work is occurring in the area.‖
Upon a voice vote the motion failed.
Mayor Engen said, the motion fails. We‘re back to the main motion. Is there further discussion on that motion? Mr. Jaffe?
Alderman Jaffe said, okay, I‘ve got a few items. First, I wanted just to make a clarification back on the thing that Pam brought up in the definition of nuisance cat. I think, even though I would support what you suggested, it‘s not what came out of committee. The part about…it reads a nuisance cat means any cat that is free-roaming and is not altered or, and then it has a list of all these terrible cat behaviors. I think that‘s the way it‘s supposed to be. Like the old ordinance used to just say any cat that‘s free-roaming and is not altered so a free-roaming cat doing terrible things as long as it was altered it was okay. So, I think the language addresses that. It is correct the way it is listed there. The other changes you suggested though I support.
Mayor Engen said, and, Mr. Strohmaier, you want to…
Alderman Strohmaier said, could Mr. Carlson come up and just confirm that?
Mayor Engen said, Mr. Carlson?
Jim Carlson, Health Department, said, confirm that ―or‖ means it‘s any one of those conditions, when they‘re all strung together with semicolons and ―ors‖, Is that a question?
Alderman Strohmaier said, I was hoping for something more substantive than that.
Mayor Engen said, in some ways we‘re all strung together by semicolons and ―ors‖. Mr. Carlson?
Jim Carlson, Health Department, said, there is a list of eight things that would become definitions of a nuisance cat.
Alderman Strohmaier said, okay. Well, thanks for that. I guess, Mr. Walzer, did you have something else in mind there?
Mayor Engen said, Ms. Walzer?
Alderwoman Walzer said, yeah, it was pointed out we were reminded because it was quite a while ago, we had a very long discussion on this exact topic and I misremembered that if we had decide on what I City of Missoula City Council Minutes –November 7, 2011 - Page 18 had suggested, we didn‘t need any of those other extensive bad behaviors, just any cat off property would not be allowed. And we had a…and that is a potential but that‘s not what we had agreed upon in committee.
Mayor Engen said, Mr. Strohmaier?
Alderman Strohmaier said, yes, so I accept…
Alderman Jaffe said, on amendment?
Alderman Strohmaier said, yes, I will take it back to the original.
Alderman Jaffe said, alright, then let‘s adjust for that part. She also made some other changes in there that I think were reasonable and acceptable.
Alderman Strohmaier said, correct, yeah, just the first part.
Alderman Jaffe said, alright, so basically just to be clear the way it‘s going to read then is that if your cat is free-roaming and it‘s not altered, that‘s a nuisance cat. Okay? Or if your cat is free-roaming and doing any of these listed behaviors, it‘s a nuisance cat. Okay? Alright, so then the other one I want to bring up was the leash on trails piece, 6.07.605. I would like to make an amendment that we…I‘ve got to get to it, sorry. Basically scratch the language paved trails…come on, where is it? Sorry. Connect the language. So under Leash Length, essentially that dogs can be…sorry, my computer has died here…so the six-foot limit that I give retractable leashes that retractable leashes are okay on paved trails so they‘re not permitted on the sidewalks and alleys and streets but they are okay on paved trails. So the nature of the discussion we had on this is that on the riverfront trails and the like and the Bitterroot Spur and so on that people shouldn‘t have dogs on retractable leashes because sometimes they stretch them across the trail and then a cyclist can run into that and it‘s a hazard. You know, there‘s a lot of things people do irresponsibly that can be a hazard but…and I don‘t think that justifies banning of something that is perfectly acceptable. The idea of walking your dog with a retractable leash in those areas, that‘s completely the normal behavior. It doesn‘t mean that you‘re permitted then to be, you know, create a hazard with your leash and I don‘t think the two should be equated together. So, anyway, I‘d like to scratch that because it again essentially make outlaws out of almost every dog owner that takes their dog out on those trails.
Mayor Engen said, Mr. Strohmaier?
Alderman Strohmaier said, let‘s take that as a stand-alone amendment.
Mayor Engen said, I‘m sorry.
Alderman Strohmaier said, yeah, let‘s take that as a stand-alone amendment. I will not accept that as a friendly amendment.
Mayor Engen said, okay. Alright, on Mr. Jaffe‘s motion to amend, Ms. Walzer?
Alderwoman Walzer said, I want to have him just restate what the amendment is. It was on my list of items.
Alderman Jaffe said, oh I wish I could. I can‘t get there anymore. So, in 6.07.605…
Mayor Engen said, here comes hardcopy technology, Mr. Jaffe.
Alderman Jaffe said, alright, thank you very much. I‘ve got to find it. There is a thing about…there it is, I‘m sorry, it‘s right in front of me. Okay, so it reads: an owner or keeper of a dog must contain a dog on a leash with no more than six feet of the leash‘s length being utilized with the following exceptions, City of Missoula City Council Minutes –November 7, 2011 - Page 19 retractable leash, extending the maximum of 16 feet is allowed in open areas away from streets, alleys, paved or unpaved trails or sidewalks. I‘d like to remove the phrase paved or unpaved trails which would then allow retractable leashes on paved and unpaved trails.
Mayor Engen said, okay. On Mr. Jaffe‘s motion to amend. Discussion? Seeing none, anyone in the audience care to comment?
AMENDMENT
Alderman Jaffe made a motion in 6.07.605 to change it to remove the words ―paved or unpaved trails‖ so that it reads: an owner or keeper of a dog must contain a dog on a leash with no more than six feet of the leash‘s length being utilized with the following exceptions, retractable leash, extending the maximum of 16 feet is allowed in open areas away from streets, alleys or sidewalks‖ which would then allow retractable leashes on paved and unpaved trails.
Upon a voice vote the motion carried.
Mayor Engen said, motion carries. Mr. Jaffe?
Alderman Jaffe said, alright. Another one is 6.07.030 which was the part about the court not being allowed to reduce or modify the fines that was in our copy here is stricken erroneously that the motion in committee went the other way. I‘d like to reintroduce that amendment as well. Just as a general principle, I don‘t like having our ordinances forbidding the courts to look at the circumstances of the case and then look for alternatives or have latitude and, in general, I think that‘s part of the whole purpose of our court system. I understand that it in no way is a violation of, you know, any law or principle in our Constitution and so on of tying the hands of the courts but in general I don‘t like that and I‘d like us to leave that flexibility in there.
Mayor Engen said, Mr. Jaffe‘s made a motion to amend. Discussion on the motion?
Alderman Jaffe said, I‘m sorry, just to be clear it‘s to…so my motion to amend would be to have it the way it is in our draft.
Mayor Engen said, on the motion to amend? Mr. Wiener?
Alderman Wiener said, I want to support this and we had some testimony earlier about volunteer enforcement of the leash law. It seems a very appropriate form of community service for people violating the leash law would be go out and tend to enforce it, it would at least, I think, make them respond better to correction the next time they run into it. And, of course, if this judge may not suspend or defer the sentence, then that‘s not a possibility.
Mayor Engen said, further discussion on the motion to amend? Anyone in the audience care to comment on that item? Mr. Carlson?
Jim Carlson, Health Department, said, as I indicated to the committee, we‘ve…this was added by the Council a number of years ago in response to the fact that although staff in many situations had spent hours, for example, in licensing issues, sending out notices, following up with phone calls, going to the person‘s home, giving them eventually a ticket and then they still don‘t get licensed and end up in court. They‘re found guilty and the license…the fee is suspended. That essentially means a heck of a lot of public enforcement money has been spent on something that ends up with no penalty where thousands of other citizens go ahead and license their dog and/or leash their dog or do other things and don‘t ask that they have that amount of enforcement time spent on them. So, essentially enforcement time is very expensive and when those tickets are issued and people end up in court, there‘s a lot of City time and public money invested in that and for all of that penalty to be just set aside because there‘s a good conversation that occurs with the judge or something like that, I think is not a good expenditure of City of Missoula City Council Minutes –November 7, 2011 - Page 20 enforcement money and, in fact, encourages people to put off their required fees or behaviors as long as they possibly can.
Mayor Engen said, on the motion to amend? Mr. Childers?
Alderman Childers said, so I won‘t support it as is if the author of the motion cared to alter it to give the judge an alternative to do the community service piece, I might consider that but even that if we put volunteers out to do enforcement of our ordinances, we run into I believe some severe problems that I think we‘d want to avoid.
Mayor Engen said, further discussion?
AMENDMENT
Alderman Jaffe made a motion in 6.07.030, in the penalty section, which had been stricken, to state that the court will be allowed to reduce or modify the fines.
Upon a voice vote was unclear on the motion.
Mayor Engen said, let‘s count them off please, Ms. Rehbein.
Upon a roll call vote, the vote on the motion was as follows:
AYES: Jaffe, Marler, Rye, Strohmaier, Walzer, Wiener, Wolken
NAYS: Childers, Haines, Hellegaard, Wilkins, Mitchell
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Motion carried: 7 Ayes, 5 Nays, 0 Abstain, 0 Absent
Mayor Engen said, and the motion prevails. We‘re back to the main motion as amended. Discussion on the motion? Mr. Childers?
Alderman Childers said, just as it sits, I‘m going to have to vote against it. I hate to do that but it won‘t be because of the most recent amendment. I don‘t think that‘s really problematic but it‘s because I firmly believe that if we don‘t consider the portion of our populace that wants to utilize our land and not be harassed by other people‘s dogs, then we‘re leaving those out. And I understand balance. I understand all of that but part of the balance is consideration of all of the people involved.
Mayor Engen said, Mr. Haines?
Alderman Haines said, I want everybody to understand that I‘m not talking about every dog that comes down the trail, leash or otherwise. Many of those, if you know anything about dogs, I just watch the tail and you can tell here‘s one that you can stop and pet and talk to the owner, and I do that, and I enjoy that. Where I‘m coming from, this is something that‘s coming out of our Public Safety and Health Committee and under the full Council here and we‘re talking about something I believe in many instances constitutes a threat to human health and their property. I don‘t…I can walk around downtown here in the dark where there are no street lights, meet other people down here and I feel perfectly safe. Although I know some of those individuals may be very dangerous as many instances in downtown Missoula has proven. And I feel the same way on a trail whether it‘s on a mountainside or a trail running through the City. But every citizen has the right of self-defense to ensure their own personal safety and, in fact, City of Missoula City Council Minutes –November 7, 2011 - Page 21 recent court cases have made it even more evident that you don‘t have to back up and surrender your rights in order to keep from being injured. So, if we‘re not going to put this leash law in place, all I can say is God help us because sooner or later somebody‘s going to be seriously injured by a dog that the owner will say, well, he‘s never done that before. And if you‘re a runner, and I don‘t know where Marilyn is on this, but I run too and I‘ve had many people tell me, oh, my dog won‘t hurt you yet there are many, many, many instances in the literature of that…of somebody saying well my dog won‘t hurt you and the dog literally tearing somebody to pieces. And I think we‘re asking for that kind of a problem and I think that‘s why this is such a controversial subject is a lot of people have had experiences like I‘ve had where they‘ve had the wits scared out of them by dogs that were not wagging the tail, they were not on a leash, they were not paying any attention to the owner screaming his lungs out and he was 100 yards away, and the dogs were in a combat mode. They were out to do damage and, therefore, all I can say is I will take steps to protect myself and I recognize that any other citizen in Missoula or in the state or in the United States can take the same steps to protect themselves against a hazard to their life, and I will do that. Thank you.
Alderwoman Marler said, well, it appears that it‘s me and the two cranky old guys tonight. I‘m on the side with Dick and Ed. I agree…I feel strongly enough about the dogs on leash issue and I would have been clear about that from the beginning. I haven‘t…this isn‘t coming out of left field; I‘ve always said that I want us to have a leash law. I feel strongly enough about that that I‘m going to vote against the ordinance. And maybe I will be proven wrong, maybe we can get some money to Animal Control and Parks so that everybody will understand and comply the actual rule for voice restraint and it won‘t be a problem. Maybe everybody‘s off-leash dog will be within five feet of them and heeding all the calls and it will be fine but in the meantime I encourage the half dozen friends of mine I can think of off the top of my head who have been bitten by dogs while out running on conservation land. I encourage you to contact your City Council person. I encourage you to contact the Mayor‘s office and don‘t just call me, the sympathetic one on City Council and say that this is a concern, let people know. Because I know that pets are a part of people‘s families and I feel like the most outspoken folks on this are people who like to have their dogs off leash, I understand it‘s important to people, but I would like everybody to please speak up on this. And I want to, you know, with apologies for Dave and to the Committee, I‘m not going to vote for something that allows the dogs to be off leash on conservation lands.
Mayor Engen said, further discussion on the motion? Ms. Hellegaard?
Alderwoman Hellegaard said, well, I‘m not going to support the ordinance either and I know we‘ve put a lot of work into it but from day one I‘ve always said if we don‘t have the financial piece in place, I‘m not going to support it. Obviously we don‘t; we‘ve kicked that can down the road until the 2013 budget so, you know, if we can work it into the budget, I‘d reconsider it. But at this point, I‘m not going to set the taxpayers up for one of our districts to be increased substantially to take care of an ordinance that we‘re not sure where the money‘s coming from.
Mayor Engen said, Ms. Rye?
Alderwoman Rye said, thanks. I am not a member of the Public Safety Committee but I appreciate all the work that went into this and updating this ordinance, Dave, I know that you sloughed through just a lot of public hearings and different ideas to get to where you are. I do sympathize and feel almost entirely the same way as Marilyn does and Ed does regarding the leash law. I might have voted on a different day about that; I really would have. I don‘t think it would have passed anyway. However, I just could not bring myself to support it tonight for a couple of different reasons but I really…that I may not be able to articulate very well tonight because it‘s quite late, you know, with the Daylight Savings Time. I do want to make it clear though that the voice restraint, I mean let‘s be honest, it really is just off-leash. I don‘t know of hardly any dogs that actually do respond when you call them, is only for certain conservation lands. It‘s not for downtown Missoula. It‘s not for a variety of other places. It‘s not for Greenough Park. It‘s not for the riverfront trails. You have to have your dog on a leash in those places so the Mayor‘s argument, with all due respect, that the policy is following kind of what is practiced, well, most…a lot of dogs really aren‘t on leashes most of the time in the City of Missoula anyway so I don‘t know…I mean to that extent I‘m not sure exactly why we have a leash law. I mean I think we should and I think it actually should be enforced City of Missoula City Council Minutes –November 7, 2011 - Page 22 and I would love to encourage the administration to both the City and the County to beef up the Animal Control budget in regards to enforcement because…I mean I‘ve visited plenty of other places where it‘s strictly enforced and people do have their dogs on leashes and Fluffy, the Rottweiler is not treated like one with the universe and that she can‘t be on or he can‘t be on a leash. And we don‘t enforce it to the point where I have a neighbor who lets their pit-bull, their unaltered pit-bull, go outside to the bathroom in the morning on what is a safe route to school. And I mean it‘s just unbelievable to me that this dog kind of gets away with this and to some extent it‘s because our leash law is not enforced in the City of Missoula. We have a sign in Greenough Park, we have signs on the riverfront trails but really they‘re not really well enforced and you feel funny telling people, gosh, put your dog on a leash. I mean I‘ve had so many people complain to me that they‘ve been bitten while running. My occupational therapist that I had for an injury was bitten three times on the fire road of Jumbo alone, in the same place, in the…on the tushy. So, I guess I‘m talking myself back into voting for that. So if somebody brings it up against, I guess I‘ll vote for it. So, I really would like to encourage the administration in the next budget season, I believe we added a .5 FTE animal control officer way back in like 2005 or 2006, Mr. Franceschina? No, we did. I remember this. So, I think we really need to beef up that budget. And in addition to mutt mitts, I mean I would just be thrilled if, you know, at least four to five times a year I didn‘t have to come home and like power spray my shoes because there‘s dog crap everywhere, especially in the spring time. The snow does not make dog poop disappear, people. So, anyway, I think I‘ll support this but…and I appreciate all of the work that‘s gone into it but this is not a town with a population of 750 people. This is a City of 70,000 people and we have to have some agreed upon social rules and contracts so that we all kind of get along and dogs off-leash on a rear front trail that gets 10,000 people down there a day is not okay. It‘s not okay. Thanks.
Alderman Wilkins said, well, the reason I kind of supported Option 2 is because I thought that would probably be the cheapest route we could go, which probably isn‘t the greatest way of thinking but things always generally come down in the end as money and this was the status quo kind of what we‘ve been doing. But I think I voiced myself that I don‘t believe in voice restraint. I have not seen a dog yet that I would say was good at voice restraint. And I don‘t, you know, I have a handicap so I don‘t get to walk or run the trails but I can sympathize with people because it doesn‘t only happen in our open spaces, it happens walking down my street with my dog on a leash and five other dogs who run up to it, when you pass a house because there‘s no fence, the dogs are not on leashes and it‘s not good. And I‘d like to see a leash law that‘s enforced and it‘s enforced all over town. So, I guess you‘ll know the way I‘m going to vote when they ask me to vote but I‘m torn on this one. I mean, I can see both sides of the issue but I haven‘t yet seen anybody that can show me a dog that was totally under voice control in all circumstances.
Mayor Engen said, further discussion? Mr. Strohmaier?
Alderman Strohmaier said, well, and to your point, Jon, and I guess I would welcome any insight from Lynn if you have another option here that you think is the lesser economic impact to the City, I truly believe that Option 2, which is part of the motion that I had put forward today, is the most…is the least economic impact in terms of if we really want to enforce the ordinance. And so purely on economic grounds and I think there‘s a lot more at stake here than just the economics, purely on economic grounds I think if we want to adequately enforce the ordinance, the other two options are…and I can see some folks taking umbrage across the table there, but I think the other options are going to be much more onerous to enforce than Option 2 which I proposed.
Alderman Wiener said, just to be clear, I actually like Option 2 because…not because I believe everybody‘s going to control their dog and it‘s not that they have to keep their dog within five feet of them, it‘s that they have to keep it more than five feet away from anybody else, but because it creates a realistic expectation for people. And you know what, people are going to violate that expectation. It happens all the time. Speed limits are also a realistic expectation. We don‘t get zero compliance with those but we continue to have them and we don‘t just say, everybody‘s going to walk so nobody breaks the speed limit. So, at any rate, I like Option 2. I think it strikes the right balance. I think we need to be clearer about communicating those expectations and, of course, we all know what that requires and we‘ll have to get it dialed. And I trust that the people of Missoula will support us in that because they value the services that City of Missoula City Council Minutes –November 7, 2011 - Page 23 we provide. At that rate, I don‘t see this ordinance changing by us talking about it anymore so I‘m going to try and call for the question.
Mayor Engen said, Mr. Wiener here has asked that we end debate. That‘s not debatable. Anybody in the audience want to comment on the notion of ending debate?
MOTION
Alderman Wiener made a motion to end debate.
Upon a voice vote the motion passed.
Mayor Engen said, motion carries and we will now have a roll call vote on the ordinance.
ORDINANCE 3472
MOTION
Alderman Strohmaier made a motion to adopt an ordinance, as amended, including Option 2 with definition of service animal and 6.07.600, amending Title 6 Missoula Municipal Code entitled "Animals" repealing Chapters 6.02, 6.04, 6.09, 6.12, 6.16, 6.20 and 6.22, enacting Chapter 6.07 entitled "Animal Ordinance" and renaming Chapter 6.08 entitled "Dogs and Pet Shops" to "Pet Shops, Pet Sales and Boarding Kennels" to generally amend, recodify and update the City's regulations pertaining to animals, increase license fees and increase fines pertaining to violations.
Upon a roll call vote, the vote on Ordinance 3472 was as follows:
AYES: Jaffe, Mitchell, Rye, Strohmaier, Walzer, Wiener, Wolken
NAYS: Childers, Haines, Hellegaard, Marler, Wilkins
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Ordinance 3472 carried: 7 Ayes, 5 Nays, 0 Abstain, 0 Absent
Mayor Engen said, and the ordinance is approved.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM MAYOR - None
GENERAL COMMENTS OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Alderwoman Marler mentioned that Thursday night, November 10th there is a fundraising benefit party for Home Resource, one of her favorite nonprofits in town, buildings reuse material center, and it‘s at the Missoula Winery, tickets are only $20. Shane Clause will be there singing and Mayor Engen will be doing the live auction.
Alderman Childers said there‘s an election tomorrow. On the off-chance that anyone hasn‘t already voted, go to the Fairgrounds, get a registration form and vote. It‘s important. You want to put people on the City Council that, even if they don‘t agree with you, they will tell you why and you can sort of understand them a lot of the time. Vote!
City of Missoula City Council Minutes –November 7, 2011 - Page 24
Alderwoman Mitchell said there was an article in the Missoulian about Robert Pierpoint who died on October 26, 2011. His career spanned 40 years as a highly regarded journalist and national correspondent with CBS news. During his career he covered six different presidents, the Korean War, the Kennedy assassination and Watergate. He was devoted to his family and he loved coming back to Montana. He spent part of the year in Santa Barbara, California and came back to West Yellowstone for the summer months. His daughter Marta was quoted as saying, ―He certainly most definitely believed that democracy and a free press go hand-in-hand and that a journalist‘s job is to uncover the facts no matter how difficult they may be for the nation to face.‖ Another quote from Marta, ―Never be intimated by someone in a position of power and he certainly believed it was the role of the press to question people in power and ensure that they were fulfilling their leadership obligations in accordance with democratic principles.‖ Those are pretty noble standards. Also, Alderwoman Mitchell said she has socks for Alderman Wilkins to pass onto the Socks for Soldiers. Her friend and neighbor, Dan Schroeder‘s funeral was last Thursday. She and her husband first met Dan and his wife Shirley when they moved to their current home on Larkspur Drive. Over the years they found out that he was the brother of Leo Schroeder and the late Helen Schroeder Tremper. She had met Leo Schroeder at the golf course in Polson and had enjoyed knowing him and occasionally golfing with him. He knew his sister, Helen, because she was a legend in her time. Not only Alderwoman Mitchell had the privilege of golfing with her on numerous occasions but she was the 17 time winner of the Women State Amateur Golf Championship. For 28 consecutive years she held the Missoula Country Club championship. After a 10-year hiatus with breast cancer and surgery and treatment she came back and won some more Country Club championships. She had asked Dan if he was a golfer too and his wife Shirley informed her that he was a good golfer but with his bad shoulder he couldn‘t play anymore. The reason for that was because he had been badly shot up in World War II in the Battle of the Bulge. The fact that he could speak German he attributed to having saved his life. He had to learn German when he went to the family farm in North Dakota and his American grandmother of German dissent insisted that if the kids came and spent the summer on the farm that they had to learn to speak German. So, he and all of his cousins learned to speak German when they went to visit their grandparents. When he was wounded, he was found by two German soldiers who could have left him to bleed to death or he believes because he could speak German to them they took care of him instead. He ended up waking up in a hospital in Great Britain. She wanted to thank him for his service and his sacrifice, her condolences to his wife Shirley and brother Leo and the nieces and nephews. The same day as Dan‘s funeral she was the target of false accusations by the Missoulians. She received a lot of calls from people who know her and know that never would she ask, expect or even consider accepting a campaign donation from the Mayor. How far journalism standards have fallen and if Dan Schroeder could survive the fire he caught from the Germans, than she surely can handle the mean spirited verbal attacks and lies inflicted by various Missoulian staff members.
Alderman Haines said last Friday evening there was an unveiling of a memorial on the UM campus and as part of that it was to commemorate and recognize the sacrifice that 40 military people have made in the recent wars on our behalf. He had passed out a pamphlet tonight on all the desks. Whenever you are on the campus and you see this particular memorial, these statues, of grandparents, a child, a teacher and the American military symbol of a fallen soldier, a bayonet stuck in the ground with a helmet on the gun butt, that‘s recognized everywhere that one of ours has fallen. He asked that people look at that and contemplate what we have in this country because of the sacrifice of people like this. He just finished reading something today about Omaha Beach on D-Day in Europe and we lost 8,000 dead in one day and hopefully we‘ll never see that kind of carnage again. This particular booklet has a letter in it from Captain Mackinnon and Helena was his hometown. He had written a letter to his wife and kids and if they read it he didn‘t make it home. Be thankful and look at that unveiling of those statues there and recognize how lucky we are in this country to have what we have and the fact that we have men and women who have laid down their life for us, don‘t ever forget that.
Alderman Wilkins thanked the University for finally seeing the light. Military people aren‘t that bad like it was in the ‗60s and the ‗70s when we came home from Viet Nam. He wanted to thank Mr. Bell for helping the University see that light. Friday is Veterans Day and there are a few veterans out there still walking around and there‘s quite a few veterans that are walking around without a roof over their head. Valor House in Missoula is for homeless veterans. Not only do they get a roof over their head but they also get help in getting on with their lives. As a token, last year he started collecting socks for Valor City of Missoula City Council Minutes –November 7, 2011 - Page 25
House. Socks are a symbol. He was an 11-B in the Army, an infantryman that his main mode of transportation were his feet and once in a great while, walking through the jungle and the mud and your socks would wear out, you‘d get a clean pair of socks. And when you got that clean pair of socks on that day, it would make your day. He‘s sure the people at Valor House could use new socks but this is also a symbol to remind you of veterans, not only Viet Nam veterans but Korean veterans, the few World War II veterans that are left and the great-grandpas from World War I that he thinks are any left now, maybe one or two. Now we have Afghanistan, Iraq. We lost 40 people from this state in Iraq and Afghanistan. Montana, for the number of people that we have living here, we have more people that have joined the military than any other state in the Union. It means something in this state. It‘s about time that we start showing our respect for the veterans that are left and are walking and going up to them and saying thank you.
Alderwoman Walzer said that Mountain Line is encouraging some public input for their proposed, potential changes. They had three planning workshops and while they were very well attended by a wide range of Missoulians, they are still willing and eager to have more input for those who couldn‘t make it so you can go online to complete an online survey at www.mountainline.com and you can do that all the way through Sunday, November 13th. It‘s a way for you to speak out about what you think is important in our buses in the future of Mountain Line. Lastly, a very amazing civil servant passed away a couple of weeks ago, Debbie Ogden, and they had a celebration for her life yesterday in Seeley Lake. She got to meet Debbie through the Local Emergency Planning Committee. She first started working for the County in 1978 and a 9-1-1 dispatcher and finished her career just recently as the Center Supervisor and the Deputy DES Coordinator. If anyone knows 9-1-1 work is really difficult and the fact that Debbie had worked so long in such an important role is really commendable. The entire Seeley Lake community and the entire County has suffered a great loss for having her passing. Her condolences to her family and to all of the folks at 9-1-1; they are a great family of people there that she worked with too.
Alderman Wiener went to an unusual event last Friday. It was organized by his opponent and she had auctioned off a lot of her yard signs. He had auctioned one of his signs but he actually attached a gift certificate to it and was able to get his for free. They raised approximately $600 for local charities which is amazing and really positive and a different turn in the campaigning. He has really enjoyed being in a campaign with his opponent. It was a real reminder to him that people get into this for honorable intentions. We have a vision of the City that we want to see and we disagree about what the vision is but they are motivated in the end by something good and not by the desire to accumulate campaign contributions, whether it‘s from the Mayor, or like from Alderman Haines who gave to Alderman Wiener‘s opponent.
Alderman Strohmaier said it‘s been about 22 years ago when his dad passed away of lung cancer. At the time and to this day he has many regrets, one of which is that he did not talk more to him about his service in the U.S. Navy during World War II. He spent a number of years roaming around the South Pacific on a PT boat and he didn‘t talk a lot about it at the time but it profoundly changed his life and the service of him and many other men and women like him profoundly changed the course of history. He would wholeheartedly concur with some of the comments we‘ve heard this evening to thank veterans in this country for their service and do so before it‘s too late.
Alderwoman Rye said her stepson is 19 and he voted in his first election which was this mail-in ballot election and she wanted to say congratulations to him and he did it on his own. It‘s just exciting to hear a kid vote.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Administration and Finance Committee 10/26/2011 11/02/2011
Approve claims totaling $ 1,416,497.17. (Detailed Claims) (Chart of Accounts) (A&F) (11/08/11)
City of Missoula City Council Minutes –November 7, 2011 - Page 26
Alderwoman Rye said, that was to move the what? The ICLEI…
Mayor Engen said, item #2, to move the claims.
Alderwoman Rye said, to move the claims which includes the ICLEI membership. So I will so move.
Mayor Engen said, okay. That motion is in order. Is there discussion on the motion?
Alderwoman Hellegaard said, so just to be clear, we‘re going to pull that until we can get some more information on the ICLEI…I mean pay the rest but pull the ICLEI off. Is that what we‘re doing.
Mayor Engen said, no, you‘ve actually just removed the item from the consent agenda for consideration.
Alderwoman Hellegaard said, alright.
Mayor Engen said, okay. Any discussion on the motion? Mr. Wiener?
Alderman Wiener said, so are there people here who want to comment on this item? You mean you said you had pulled it so some people could comment.
Alderwoman Hellegaard said, well, the problem is it just showed up on our stuff so the people in my ward that are concerned about this I‘m going to have to notify them tonight that we have now paid this membership due. They‘ve been trying to get information on this for quite a few months and have been getting the runaround. So, I just wanted to put this…the ICLEI off for a week so that these people had an opportunity to be notified and come down and voice their concerns to City Council, but…
Mayor Engen said, Ms. Hellegaard, from whom have you gotten the runaround?
Alderwoman Hellegaard said, well, I have tried to find out who authorized us to become a member of this could track it down to the City-County Health Department, was told nothing‘s there. I‘ve tried to find out where the invoice goes and have been told nobody knows anything about it. So, when I saw it show up on our invoices tonight, I thought it would be a good time for me to get the information on it since we‘re waiting to pay it.
Mayor Engen said, so it‘s a…we‘ve been members of ICLEI I can‘t tell you for how long. We were members before my term of office began. Mr. Childers, would you refresh my memory? Do we split…do the Council and I and my office split the dues? I don‘t recall.
Alderman Childers said, you know, I don‘t remember, Mayor. I just know we‘ve been at this for a while that it was authorized by the City Council I believe. It‘s not anything new.
Mayor Engen said, Mr. Bender?
Bruce Bender, Chief Administrative Officer, said, it‘s a renewal and it‘s split $600 to the Mayor‘s budget and $600 to the City Council budget.
Mayor Engen said, and ICLEI…you know, I can never remember what ICLEI stands for but they are…it‘s local governments for climate change and that‘s what the organization is all about, is managing greenhouse gases and climate change. I‘ve been to a conference, this was in 2007 or so in Albuquerque, well attended by lots of municipalities from around the country. They‘re all about managing greenhouse gases and trying to prevent climate change.
Alderwoman Hellegaard said, and I understand that but there is a fraction of people in this community that are very concerned that we are a member of this because of what the agenda of this group is. So, I wanted to give them an opportunity so they could come down and talk to you and the Council about their concerns, just so we could understand them. City of Missoula City Council Minutes –November 7, 2011 - Page 27
Mayor Engen said, sure. Ms. Marler?
Alderwoman Marler said, I‘m not saying that I want to make this motion or anything but wouldn‘t it be appropriate if somebody wanted to, to make a motion to remove that specific cost from the week‘s expenditures and we vote on it at a later time?
Mayor Engen said, sure, you bet.
Alderwoman Marler said, I thought that might be appropriate if somebody wanted to do that.
Mayor Engen said, okay. Further discussion? Mr. Wiener?
Alderman Wiener said, I would actually…I‘d welcome to have a discussion about this. In the time that we‘ve been sitting here since it came up I‘ve already gotten an email from one of the members of the Climate Action Plan group saying how useful this membership is and I think there enormous numbers of people in this community who are concerned about the effects that we‘re having on our atmosphere, human cause, changes to the climate and that I would welcome having that discussion here. And I know there are constituents of all of us who would like to come down and reiterate what a high priority they think it is for us to address this, despite the fact that the words ―agenda 21‖ appear on ICLEI‘s website.
Alderwoman Rye said, well, I think…I mean I…I think that discussion would be fine. I think the discussion can happen and the organizational fee that the City has paid consistently for some years can still happen at the same time. We don‘t have to not…we don‘t have to…I mean we can have the discussion regardless of this particular claim.
Mayor Engen said, further discussion? Ms. Hellegaard?
Alderwoman Hellegaard said, I‘d like to move that we remove this from the accounts to be paid and put it off for a week or two.
Mayor Engen said, Ms. Hellegaard has asked that we remove that item from the payable, for this cycle. That motion is in order. Discussion on the motion? Mr. Jaffe?
Alderman Jaffe said, I guess maybe from Marty, is there any consequences as far as membership in the organization by delaying the payment that you‘re aware of?
Mayor Engen said, I don‘t think there is.
Alderman Jaffe said, okay.
City Clerk Rehbein said, not that I‘m aware of. I can give you a little more background about how you got where you are with it.
Mayor Engen said, we won‘t do that right now, Ms. Rehbein.
City Clerk Rehbein said, okay…[inaudible]
Alderman Jaffe said, I mean I imagine it‘s somewhere in our budget that this be approved. So, I‘m actually going to support the motion to postpone the payment. I think, sure, why not? It doesn‘t harm anything to have that discussion or have the delay.
Mayor Engen said, further discussion on the motion? Mr. Childers?
Alderman Childers said, I just want to note that I‘m looking at their website and I can‘t, for the life of me, figure out what ICLEI stands for, but I know it‘s a good thing. City of Missoula City Council Minutes –November 7, 2011 - Page 28
Mayor Engen said, the I is International and I don‘t get much from there so I just can‘t remember. Anyone in the audience care to comment on the question? Alright, seeing none, we‘re all done discussion? Alright.
MOTION
Alderwoman Hellegaard made a motion to postpone payment to ICLEI.
Upon a voice vote the motion passed.
Mayor Engen said, and the motion carries. We‘re back to the motion to approve the rest of the payables. Discussion on that motion? Seeing none, anyone in the audience? Seeing none.
MOTION
Alderwoman Rye made a motion to approve claims totaling $ 1,416,497.17, minus $1,200 for the ICLEI membership dues to be discussed at another time.
Upon a voice vote the motion passed.
Mayor Engen said, Ms. Rehbein, do we need to do that by roll call.
City Clerk Rehbein said, nope.
Mayor Engen said, okay. Thank you. Done. Motion is approved.
Committee of the Whole 10/26/2011 Joint with BCC 11/02/2011 UM City Luncheon
Conservation Committee 10/26/2011
Pedestrian Connections Subcommittee 11/02/2011
Plat, Annexation and Zoning Committee 10/26/2011 11/02/2011
Public Safety and Health Committee 11/02/2011
Public Works Committee 10/26/2011
NEW BUSINESS (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, REPORTS)
Request by Ed Childers to select applicants to interview for Municipal Court judge. (memo) Wilkins motion to suspend rules – failed
Alderman Childers said, I think we all know what we‘re about…our Municipal Court judge is retiring and it‘s our job to find replacement for, I believe, the next couple of years, until the end of 2013. We have City of Missoula City Council Minutes –November 7, 2011 - Page 29 nine applicants. We are each allowed to choose one person to interview. It‘s my hope that we don‘t interview all nine applicants because we‘re going to try to give an hour to each one and we need to get this job done preferably by the 21st of November. If not the 21st, I don‘t believe we‘re going to meet on the 28th and so we‘ll end up on at least the 5th of December before we decide. I‘d like very much to have this decision made before the end of the year and we know that‘s because we could have some turnover and we will have at least one new member at that time no matter what. So, there‘s a process to go through and I‘m hoping that the Mayor, since you‘re running the meeting here, we‘ll just select people by their hands and let them pick.
Mayor Engen said, okay. Mr. Wilkins?
Alderman Wilkins said, well, there‘s only nine applicants and I understand it takes an hour but I‘d like to put a motion on the floor that we interview all of them.
Mayor Engen said, that motion is in order. Is there discussion on that motion? Ms. Walzer?
Alderwoman Walzer said, we‘d have to suspend our rules because our rules specifically spell out that we…the process so that would have to be a suspension of the rules.
Mayor Engen said, okay. Are we interested in…would you like to amend your motion to suspend the rules to consider that item?
Alderman Wilkins said, I think Mr. Nugent is checking that out. Okay, I‘ll do my motion to suspend the rules.
Mayor Engen said, okay. The motion to suspend the rules to consider interviewing all nine applicants and we‘ll take simply the motion to suspend the rules first and then you can have discussion on the rest. So, those in…well, let‘s see. Anyone in the audience care to comment on the motion to suspend the rules? Alright, with that, discussion on the motion? I‘m sorry. The motion to suspend the rules is…I think…discussion on the motion? Yes, sir?
Alderman Wilkins said, I suppose I should say why I want to suspend the rules and go with this motion. Is that correct?
Mayor Engen said, once we get there, yes.
Alderman Wilkins said, not yet though?
Mayor Engen said, right.
Alderman Wilkins said, okay.
MOTION
Alderman Wilkins made a motion to suspend the rules.
Upon a voice vote the motion failed.
Mayor Engen said, I think the motion fails. We‘ll go back to the process of nomination. And, Mr. Strohmaier, do you have someone you‘d like to nominate?
Alderman Strohmaier said, sure, I‘d like to nominate Marie Andersen.
Mayor Engen said, Mr. Wiener? Ms. Walzer?
City of Missoula City Council Minutes –November 7, 2011 - Page 30
Alderwoman Walzer said, Ethan Lerman.
Mayor Engen said, Ms. Wolken? Ms. Rye?
Alderwoman Rye said, Susan Firth.
Mayor Engen said, Mr. Jaffe?
Mayor Engen said, Mr. Wilkins?
Alderman Wilkins said, Mark McLaverty.
Mayor Engen said, Ms. Hellegaard?
Alderwoman Hellegaard said, Kathleen Jenks.
Mayor Engen said, Mr. Haines? Ms. Mitchell?
Alderwoman Mitchell said, whoever I would choose is already also been named.
Mayor Engen said, Mr. Childers? Ms. Marler?
Alderwoman Marler said, Jen Ewan.
Mayor Engen said, okay. Mr. Wiener?
Alderman Wiener said, Samuel Warren.
Mayor Engen said, and we have Mr. Warren twice. Okay. Anyone else? Alright, Ms. Rehbein, would you read the list of folks to be interviewed?
City Clerk Rehbein said, pardon me if I get folks twice because I wrote them down as you called them. I have Kathleen Jenks, Samuel Warren, Jennifer Ewan, Susan Firth, Marie Andersen, Ethan Lerman, Mark McLaverty. I think that‘s it.
Mayor Engen said, okay. Anyone missing? Mr. Haines?
Alderman Haines said, quick question. Is there anybody that wasn‘t nominated in that list?
City Clerk Rehbein said, yes.
Alderman Haines said, who?
City Clerk Rehbein said let me count. Andrew Scott and Matthew Sonnichsen.
Mayor Engen said, alright.
Alderman Haines said, say those again please, Marty.
City Clerk Rehbein said, Matthew Sonnichsen and Andrew Scott.
Alderman Haines said, okay, got you. City of Missoula City Council Minutes –November 7, 2011 - Page 31
Mayor Engen said, alright, with that, ladies and gentlemen, we have our interviews set. Ms. Mitchell?
Alderwoman Mitchell said, I‘d like to nominate Andrew Scott please.
Mayor Engen said, and we‘ll add Andrew Scott to the list. And with that we have no additional new business. We have no items to be referred. I‘m sorry, Mr. Childers?
Alderman Childers said, on that topic, Ms. Rehbein, would you please add another hour to our three hours on Wednesday and we‘ll just run until 5 at this point, if we can get people lined up for interviews because that‘s kind of a lot of people to interview.
Mayor Engen said, Ms. Marler?
Alderwoman Marler said, just on process I was expecting that we might go around again and try to get it to six people. Is that not how we do it? No.
Mayor Engen said, I think you‘re there.
Alderwoman Marler said, alright, we‘ll go longer.
Mayor Engen said, okay.
ITEMS TO BE REFERRED
To Committee of the Whole: Conduct interviews and appoint a person to fill the Municipal Court vacancy. (memo) – Regular Agenda (Marty Rehbein)
To Plat, Annexation and Zoning Committee An ordinance to amend Title 20 City Zoning Ordinance to incorporate text amendments to Section 20.45.020 entitled ―Parcel and Building standards in Residential Districts‖. (memo)—Regular Agenda (Jen Gress) Amendment Article 7. Error Corrections and Adjustments to the subdivision regulations to allow for restrictions or conditions placed on a plat by the governing body to be amended or removed by a future council. (memo)—Regular Agenda (Lyn Hellegaard) Confirm the appointment of Sandy Mitchell to the City Board of Adjustment as second alternate for a term commencing immediately and ending June 30, 2014. (memo)—Regular Agenda (Mayor Engen)
To Public Works Committee Award the purchase of a scanner/plotter to Hewlett Packard using the State of Montana WSCA/NASPO (Western States Contracting Alliance/National Association of State Procurement Officials) and the purchase of SAN (Storage Area Network) to Mountain States Networking. (memo)—Regular Agenda (Don Verrue)
MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNICATIONS, PETITIONS, REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS - None
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Engen thanked the council members and the staff for their service.
The meeting adjourned at 9:37 P.M.
ATTEST: APPROVED: City of Missoula City Council Minutes –November 7, 2011 - Page 32
Martha L. Rehbein, CMC John Engen City Clerk Mayor
(SEAL)
Respectfully submitted by,
Nikki Rogers, Deputy City Clerk