Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/11/2010 COW minutes COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES May 11, 2010 CALL TO ORDER — ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. in the Village Board Room of the Village Hall, 50 South Emerson Street, by Mayor Pro Tem Arlene Juracek. Present at the meeting were Trustees Paul Hoefert, John Korn, John Matuszak, Steven Polit, and Michael Zadel. Staff present included Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Community Development Director William Cooney, Environmental Health Coordinator Bob Roels and Village Attorney George Wagner. II. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JANUARY 27, 2010. Motion made by Trustee Polit seconded by Trustee Zadel. Minutes were approved ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF MARCH 23, 2010. Motion made by Trustee Korn seconded by Trustee Polit. Minutes were approved III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD David Toeppen — 409 S. Hi -Lusi spoke. He wanted to advise the Village Board about the need to consider taking advantage of a new lighting technology at the new Randhurst Development. He stated the new technology allows for very minimal light trespass and he has seen these new light fixtures in action and would recommend considering them. He stated the new fixtures require less height and are flat lenses with full cut off. He also stated similar lights are in place at the new Wal Mart store in Mount Prospect. William Cooney responded stating that the PUD that is in place for the Randhurst Development already includes the cut off light requirement. IV. FERAL CAT UPDATE Mayor Pro Tem Juracek provided a summary of previous discussions from January 2010. She also stated that staff was requested to undertake some additional research at that time. She stated the purpose of this meeting is to discuss various decision models which could eventually lead to a Village ordinance or policy. She stated that at the conclusion of this discussion there will likely be at least one more Committee of the Whole meeting to discuss possible ordinance issues prior to finalization. 5/11/10 Committee of the Whole H: \VILM \Cow\2010 \MINUTES \COW Minutes 5- 11- 10.doc Village Manager Michael Janonis spoke. He stated that there are no clear solutions which will make everyone happy and there are questions regarding studies from both sides of the aisle. He stated staff has no specific recommendations regarding this issue and it is truly a public policy decision and subjective topic depending on your point of view. He also stated that there are legal ramifications attached to each possible decision option. Assistant Village Manager David Strahl provided an overview of each decision model. Decision Option I The current process is complaint driven. Whereby, Village inspectors go out to check on possible complaints primarily to determine whether someone is feeding cats that would create a health hazard or a nuisance due to cats defecating on other properties. He also stated that by Village ordinance there are to be no more than three total dogs and cats per property. He stated that if a violation is found the violator is advised of the violation and given a period of time to rectify the situation. If they fail to rectify the situation a citation is issued and there may be court proceedings to enforce the ordinance. He also stated that if the address has a registered colony, it is confirmed with the local sponsor and if there are violations according to Village ordinance those violation concerns are forwarded to Cook County for investigation of the colony. There could be a situation in the future whereby the County determines the colony is in compliance with County ordinances, but not with Village ordinances, such a conflict would likely result in legal proceedings at the Circuit Court level. However, there have been no situations which have progressed to that level to date. There are also some different definitions of "owner" is in terms of a citation for control of the cats between the County and the Village. Decision Option II This could be described as modifying the current process and any complaint that is filed regarding a registered cat colony is directed to the local sponsor for resolution. This would consist of possibly two tracks, the typical track regarding an issuance of a complaint by the Village, reinspection and legal proceedings if failure to comply in case of the violation not being a colony. If a colony was the root of the complaint, then the County would be responsible for investigating and resolving the complaint. Another scenario is that the Village would terminate proceedings once the County completed its investigation and released its results relating to a registered colony. Decision Option III This could be described as utilizing the current process with a modification of utilizing humane traps coordinated through staff for placement. This process would have three basic directions. If a complaint was received, an inspection would be undertaken and if it was determined not to be a sponsored colony, staff could set up a trap to capture the animal and if the animal is not registered to a colony it would then be euthanized. If a trapped animal was registered to a colony it would be released on site. If an animal could not be trapped, the process for inspection /reinspection and legal proceedings would be followkil Committee of the Whole Page 2 of 5 H: \VILM \Cow \2010 \MINUTES \COW Minutes 5- 11- 10.doc the current process. The final aspect of this approach is to advise the sponsor of a nuisance violation and depending on the results from the County's investigation as to the nuisance, a resolution might be accepted from the County. However, if the Village was dissatisfied with the result it could challenge the inspection report through legal proceedings. This scenario would increase staff time to set and monitor traps and to work with an animal control contractor and would likely result in capturing numerous wildlife for euthanizing. Decision Option IV This option is the creation of an animal control division within the Community Development department. This process would still be triggered by a complaint from a resident, although the Village would have staff available to focus the majority of their activities on animal nuisance violations, whereby the Village staff would try to determine the owner once the animal was trapped and it was not wild life. If after the animals have been identified and the nuisance is not abated, this could result in additional court proceedings, either through utilizing the sponsor or through colony for failure to comply with the judgment. This program would be estimated to cost approximately $150,000 a year for one full time staff person, vehicle, equipment training and immunizations, in addition to the extensive cost of maintaining and providing the traps. Decision Option V This option is similar to the existing process, whereby it is complaint driven however, the Village would lend traps to property owners that are being exposed to a nuisance for the trapping and relocation or euthanizing of the trapped animal. The main issue with this option is the cost of the animal control contractor and the possibility that the resident that trapped the animal would relocate the animal illegally. Decision Option VI This option is to refer all cat nuisance complaints to Cook County animal control for their investigation and recommendation. Decision Option VII The final Option VII is to register local feral cat colonies within the Village and manage their proliferation in an effort to minimize the nuisance created by the colonies in the immediate surrounding area. This option for decision consideration is to require registration of feral cat colonies caretakers through the Village so that the Village is aware of these locations and to insure that if there are nuisance issues they are addressed in a timely manner. However, this scenario would likely result in legal proceedings with the County and the colony sponsor without some type of involvement from the colony sponsor. 5/11/10 Committee of the Whole Page 3 of 5 H: \VILM \Cow\2010 \MINUTES \COW Minutes 5- 11- 10.doc General comments from the Village Board members included the following items: • There were general concerns about Options 5, 6, 4 & 3 and it was also suggested that another option could be added as Option VIII whereby the colonies would be prohibited all together. • The remaining Options of 1, 2, and 7 could be considered for further discussion. Marilyn Furer - 2000 W. Lincoln spoke. She stated that she would support Option VII and suggested that the Village focus on protecting the residents regarding complaints and consider treating all cats as strays. She stated that animals should be contained on your own property if you choose to care for them. Linda Wilcox — 1714 Pheasant Trail spoke. She stated that she feeds the animals out of a sense of need but does not leave out the food overnight. She stated that this discussion has allowed her to open up communication with her neighbors regarding the resolution and retention of a cat colony in the area. Serna Fried of the Feral Feline Project spoke. She stated the colony locations are not publicly identified in compliance with the Cook County ordinance and Cook County has investigated complaints in the past. She stated that she would cooperate with the Village in confirming a colony location if a complaint is lodged through her agency. General comments from the Village Board members included the following items: • It was suggested that the ordinance may be created to prohibit feeding unless ownership can be confirmed. Thereby, there is no question about the responsibility of the animals. Julie Fillic — 301 S. Elmhurst spoke. She stated that even with the feeding prohibition the colony is allowed to feed the cats thereby violating the number of cats that are allowed on a single property. She said she would support Option VII if the cats could be contained within a registered colony and deterrents on neighbor's property could be extensive enough to keep animals off the property that was not connected with the colony. Lisa Pacina — 303 S. Elmhurst spoke. She stated that she would support Option VII for containment and the caretaker agreement requires communication with the residents which has not taken place in her situation. General comments from the Village Board members included the following items. There was the general consensus that Option VII would be the most likely option with some modifications. Those modifications included the following items: ❖ Focus on defining the nuisance threshold. ❖ The Village would only know of a colony after a complaint was investigated and confirmation from a sponsor. ❖ It would require the colony to work with staff to eliminate the nuisance through containment options. ❖ If the colony does not contain the cats to address the nuisance or eliminate the nuisance then a violation and possible court proceedings could be undertaken. 5/11/10 Committee of the Whole Page 4 of 5 H: \VILM \Cow \2010 \MINUTES \COW Minutes 5- 11- 10.doc • A three animal limit would need to be relaxed for a colony if it was registered, but would still require the nuisance to be addressed. • There would be a need to work with the sponsoring organization to accept this regulation and cooperate with caretaker agreements and nuisance elimination on a more active basis than exists today. ❖ Obviously these options would require additional education and responses from the TNR program for the standards to be followed. Consensus from the Village Board was to direct staff to review Option VII with these suggested modifications and prepare an ordinance for future consideration. V. VILLAGE MANAGER REPORT Village Manager Michael Janonis stated the Village is planning an American Idol Party assuming the Idol from Mount Prospect continues through the process. He also stated this upcoming weekend is the Village wide Garage Sale and the Public Works Open House. VI. ANY OTHER BUSINESS Trustee Korn stated that plans were becoming more firm regarding the 4 of July festival with a schedule of events to be released very soon. Trustee Polit reminded the audience of the dates for the up coming car shows. Trustee Juracek provided information regarding a Historical Society fundraising event for the first peak at Fire Station 14 VII. ADJOURNMENT Motion made by Trustee Korn seconded by Polit to move into Closed Session at 9:33p.m. The Board reconvened into Open Session at 9:42 p.m. There was no other business and meeting was immediately adjourned. 5/11/10 Committee of the Whole Page 5 of 5 H: \VILM \Cow\2010 \MINUTES \COW Minutes 5- 11- 10.doc