2006-02-06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

38 Mr. O’Connell noted that a long term financial report is given in the fall, but he will explore the matter further. Dr. Brown recommended that the City Manager incorporate comments made by Council and come back for approval. He congratulated Mr. O’Connell on doing a good job on the Work Plan. Mr. Caravati said the Work Plan is a great way for Council and the public to track what is going on in City Hall. REPORT : ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES Dr. Brown thanked the Community Design Center for their efforts to educate the public regarding energy conservation. Ms. Judy Mueller, Director of Public Works, introduced Lance Stewart, Facilities Maintenance Manager, who she said has been the fire under our energy conservation initiatives. She said energy costs have risen approximately 30%. She said the City wants to be proactive, and she listed the following as some of the recent initiatives: electronic controls in school buildings; initiatives at Charlottesville High School as a part of their recent renovations; the Transit Center will be a real “green” building; occupancy sensors; and retrofitting of buildings. Mr. Caravati said a gap in the report is our rolling assets. Ms. Mueller said we are looking at our use of premium fuel and expanding our use of hybrid vehicles. She said biofuels are being monitored and we are looking at vehicle usage ORDINANCE : ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS (DANGEROUS DOGS) Mr. Brown said we heard well thought out comments from the public regarding this proposed ordinance. He noted that the following provisions have been in the City Code for years and are not being changed: barking and howling dogs; dogs in restaurants; language regarding dogs running at large; and the SPCA’s designation as the pound. He said several of the proposed changes bring the Code up to date with State law, including: definition section; inclusion of term animal control officer; prohibition on cruelty; seizures and compoundment; and neglected animals. Mr. Brown said that the most significant changes concern unlawful confinement in a vehicle; defining and process of dealing with dangerous and vicious dogs. Mr. Brown said that the most controversial, and one he admits probably is pushing the envelope on what State law allows regards aggressive dogs. He said the concept is found outside of Virginia law and is designed to address the current law which allows “one free bite.” Ms. Hamilton noted that the ordinance includes greatly expanded provisions against cruelty to animals. Ms. Hamilton said she thinks comments made by the public are worthy of a second look at the proposals. She said the definition of an aggressive dog may be overreaching. She asked about the reporting mechanism for people who have been bitten, and said that does not appear to be addressed. She said there have several instances of near misses. She said this ordinance may be too blunt of a tool and we may need to think about it a little more. She said some sort of restitution may be needed for victims. Mr. Schilling said that he agrees basically with Ms. Hamilton, and agreed that the ordinance may be too blunt of a tool, but said many of the provisions have merit and need to be addressed. He expressed concern about acting when there are bills pending before the General Assembly, and said we may want to wait and respond after the session ends. He said he would support referring specifics to experts at the SPCA and animal professionals. He said he would find their input valuable before we go forward. He said he would also want to include dog attack victims and suggested that a group be formed to report back to Council.