CR 95-161 Animal Ordinance
. September 15, 1995
~
Council Report 95-161
ANIMAL ORDINANCE
Proposed Action
Staff recommends that the Council approve the following motion: Move that the Hopkins City Council
continue the second reading of Ordinance number 95-773.
Adoption of this motion will continue the process of amending Section 925 of the Hopkins City Code.
Overview
The City Council approved Ordinance number 95-773 for first reading at the August 1, 1995 Council meeting.
In the interim the City Attorney and the police department have reviewed the ordinance. While most of their
suggestions involved relatively minor language changes, there remain significant differences in opinion on how
best to deal with animals that are nuisances. Representatives of the police department, city attorney's office,
and city clerk's department will meet to formulate enforcement language that will be effective.
.
The City Council also requested that the staff seek information from other cities on how they deal with animal
control. A survey was done of the surrounding cities and some other cities of comparable size. The results of
the survey are attached. A number of the cities do either provide traps for cats and/or impound cats that are
captured. The cities surveyed, however, also spend a considerable amount of money per year for animal
control.
The Council also requested that staff investigate the legality of individual homeowners capturing cats that
being nuisances on their property, It is apparent from the survey that cats are being impounded with various
levels of assistance from each city. It is the opinion of the city attorney's office that a resident can capture cats
that are on his or her property and turn the cat over to the humane society.
Primary Issues to Consider
· What remains to be done on the animal control ordinance?
Supportin2 Information
· Analysis of the issues
· Survey of Animal Control Practices
c:::
. Ja sA. Genellie
. . y Clerk
0/
e
Council Report #95-16 I
Page 2
Analvsis of the Issues:
What still remains to be done with the ordinance.
The following language concerning the enforcement of nuisance complaints was drafted with suggestions
from the city attorney's office:
Subd. 2. Enforcement. Any person aggrieved by an animal nuisance may direct a written
complaint to the Hopkins Police Department stating the acts complained of, the name and address of
the owner of the animal, and the name and address of the complainant. Within forty-eight hours of
receipt of such a complaint, the police department shall notify the person owning or keeping the
animal of the complaint and request a response to the allegation within forty-eight hours. If, after
completing its investigation, the Police Department determines the animal to be nuisance, the Police
Department shall notify the person owning or keeping the animal of such finding and shan order the
nuisance abated within twenty-four hours. If the animal nuisance is not abated within that time, a
charge may be made against the owner or keeper of the animal. Any person found to have violated
the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
.
The police department has problems with this language. They are concerned about the requirements to
conduct an investigation on every complaint within a relatively short period of time. They would prefer to
allow the department more flexibility in deciding which complaints merited investigation.
.
e
e
.
Council Report #95-161
Page 3
SURVEY OF ANIMAL CONTROL PRACTICES
OTHER ANIMAL CONTROL -1994
LICENSE CONTROLS ANIMALS CATS
CITY CATS? ON CATS? REVENUES EXPENSES IMPOUNDED IMPOUNDED
Crystal No Yes 10,000 11,100 148 54
Edina No Yes 12,483 50,465 167 59
Minnetonka No No
New Hope No Yes 33,909 72,261 103 39
Plymouth No No 18,001 11,814 136 41
Robbinsdale Yes 2,398 38,881 120 30
West St. Paul No Yes 3,214 15,963 107 44
Crystal: Expenses do not include personnel costs. Shares animal control services with New Hope.
Does provide live traps to residents. The city absorbs the costs of disposing of the cats.
Edina: Animal at large ordinance is enforced upon receipt of complaint or observation of a
violation. Animal is impounded, owner is warned or cited.
Minnetonka: Used to provide traps but found that they were having to constantly be replaced or
repaired. Advises homeowners to trap the cat and take it to the humane society.
New Hope: Shares animal control services with Crystal. Ordinance requires the confinement and
and control of cats. The city provides live traps to residents. The city will impound the
animal. The city absorbs the cost of disposing of the cat
Plymouth:
Expenses does not include personnel costs. Animal control is handled by PSO.
Cats which homeowners pick up are impounded by the city. City absorbs costs of
disposing of cats.
Robbinsdale: Full-time animal control officer. Enforcement is in response to complaints.
West St. Paul: Cats are picked up when city is notified of problem. Capture is handled by Animal Control
Service, Inc. This company provides 2 hours/day of service to West St Paul
15-Sep-95