Minutes 09/08/1959 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

dissenting vote: On motion of Mr. Weiseman, the following ordinance was placed on first reading, without "AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $195,256.48 FROM THE GENERAL CAPITAL I~PROVEMENT FUND FOR THE PURPOSES OF BOND RETIR~MENT, BOND INTEREST ND NORFOLK COUNTY LITERARY FUND"' -- UNFINISHED BUSINESS 59-2gg - The agreement with the Portsmouth - Norfolk County Humane Society, tabled at the last meeting for further study, was taken up and read. Motion of Mr. Breedlove that the City Maaager be authorized to execute the contract. Walker presented the following statement: "At the conference with the Humane Society on g September last, it was generally agreed that the major aim of the ordinance and the con~ract was to provide suppor~ or subsidy for the Society. The only administretiv~ discrepancy reported by the Manager was that the condition of the City Dog Pound was far from desirable, which was no change from its pas~ status and nor new to most present. There was no repor~ that the ~og laws were unenforceable, or needed strengthening, or made less stringent. The manager stated that a group from the Society had called on him, advised that voluntary public suppor~ was insufficient, and requested financial help from the City. It is believed that the proposed amendmen~ to the City Code and the related proposed contract are' the vehicles providing that support. I strongly protest the action recommended by the Manager and claim the privilege of reading into the minutes a ~bstitute ordinance and ~ontract and the following minority opinions: Firs~ - This is poor gover~men~ from many viewpoints% The obvious desire of the Society and the intent of the action of the Manager being an increase in city support from $I,000o to $5,000., and not to alleviate or correc~ an administrative discrepancy, action thereon was a matter for initial decision by the Council prior ~o administrative actio~o To cover a desired subsidy with the cloak of a contract for services is no~ straightforward government. If the Council desires to increase its support of the Society, it should do so. If the Council believes that dog impounding service is required it should direct that the enabling ordinance and contract be made ~o explicitly cover that service. Second- The proposed ordinance is shOT%sighted and places the responsibility for enforcement of dog laws in the same twilight zone enjoyed under the previous game warden with joint city- s~are supervision. It is shortsighted because it writes into the law the name of the cohtrac~or and therefore, in event of voi~ing or abandornmen~ of the contract, or even of a change in terms, would require a redrafting and re-enactment of at least three sections, S-l, $-14, and B-lT. In ~uch even~ it also fails to provide for automatic re~urn to the game warden of the responsibility f6r impounding 9ogs. The language of Section ~-1, "upon the execution of s contract with , concerning the enforcement of the laws relating to dogs, and so long as s~oh contract remamns in force", is broad and infers that some portion of the responsibility for enforcement of the laws of the City have been delegated to the Society, Section S-15 establishes a fee and delegates to the Society the authority to compute amd also to collect such fee. Third- Sub-paragraph ~ of the contract also indicates an indeterminate degree of responsibility for enforcin~ the dog laws and agrees to handle 'all cases of complaints of neglect, cruelty or abandonmen~ of animals'. This leaves unanswered the question of who receives and takes action on the bulk of complaints, those of major interes~ ~o the average citizen, such as" does that bite, damage property, kill pe~s, roam in packs, bark at night and other general nuisances. It is assumed since these are not covered in the contract that this type of complaint will continue ~o ~hannei through the Manager zo the Game Warden as was previously the custom. Since the prime purpose of the dog laws is to protect the citizen in his person and proper~y, any ordinamce which divides this responsibility, or makes it less clear, is d~trimental thereto. Sub-paragraphs 8 and 9 are redundant ~o the contract~ Sub-paragraph contracts ~o do something which the City Code already ~equ~res and sub- paragraph 8 contracts to furnish the City Game ~arden with a city truck which is an admini- strative responsibility of fhe Manager. I move that the following s~bstitute amendment be passed on first reading and that the proper official be dir~bted to sign the following substitut6 contract: ' THIS AGRE~W~NT, made and entered into this day of , 1959, between the City of Portsmouth, Virginia, hereinafter referred ~o as the 'City' and the Portsmouth-Norfolk County Humane Society, Inc. oI Portsmouth, hereinafter referred to as the 'Society' WITNESSETH: For and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties agree as follows: 1. That the Society will maintain and operatic an adequate dog pound or shelter open ~o the public from 9:00 A.M. ~o 5:0B P.Mo, on Mondays through Saturdays. T~at the Society will maintain a register of all dogs impounded by the Game ~arden; said dogs~unless claimed within five days, will become the property of~ the Society to be adopted or disposed of as they see fit except that in no case will the do~s be released without license and proper'custody. ~. That the Society will release impounded animals to their owners upon the pay - ment of ~2.~0 for each day of the ~iv~ day period, pro-rated with $1.00 minimum and after the owner shall have exhibited receipt for license tax paid. 4. That the City Game Warden will deliver all captured dogs to the Society for impounding and provide the'Society with a copy of the delivery receipt; which