CR 94-210 Cat Control Ordinance
December 1, 1994 ~ Council Report 94-210
.
CAT CONTROL ORDINANCE
,
,
I Proposed Action
The City Council should indicate whether they wish staff to proceed with the adoption of a cat
control ordinance.
If the Council wants to proceed with an ordinance of this type, it would be presented at the
December 20 meeting for ftrst reading.
Overview
The City Council requested staff investigate the costs of enforcing a cat control ordinance. Attached
is a memorandum from the police department indicating that a reasonable level of enforcement could
be accomplished at a cost of approximately $30,000 per year. The department is also reconunending
that an ordinance not be adopted at this time primarily due to the expectations that would be created
by adopting such an ordinance.
. Staff received a number of ordinances which could be used as models for a Hopkins' ordinance.
Ordinances, however, are not self-enforcing. Any ordinance will require a signiftcant increase in the
resources that are devoted to animal control.
Staff recommends that the City undettake an educational effort in an attempt to alleviate some of the
nuisances caused by cats.
Primary Issues to Consider
. What are the City Council's alternatives?
SUPJ)ortin2 Information
. Memorandum from Heather Alex
f
,~ u~
James A. Genellie
(pity Clerk
.
-- -.-
Council Report #94-210
. Page 2
Analvsis of the Issues:
. What are the City Council's alternatives?
1) Maintain the status quo with an increased emphasis on education.
Advantages: May help reduce the number of complaints. Could be accomplished with current
persotmel and resources. Would not establish the expectation that the animal problem would be
solved.
Disadvantages: Irresponsible pet owners will continue to let their animals run free. The City will
not be able to respond to complaints about cats.
2) Pass an ordinance requiring all pets to be leashed or confined.
Advantages: The main problem with cats occurs when they roam. Such an ordinance would give
the City a legal basis for picking up and impounding cats. There would be no requirement for cat
owners to license their cats.
. Disadvantages: Enforcement could not be accomplished using current personnel. Additional
resources would have to be devoted to animal control. There would be no additional revenue to
support animal control. May well establish the expectation that the animal problem would be
solved.
3) Pass a complete cat control ordinance which would include licensing.
Advantages: Such an ordinance would give the City a legal basis for picking up and impounding
cats. Cats would have to be vaccinated. Licensed cats that are impounded could be returned to their
owners. The fees could be structured to encourage the neutering of cats. There would be some
added revenue to help offset the increased costs of animal control.
Disadvantages: Enforcement could not be accomplished using current personnel. Additional
resources would have to be devoted to animal control. The additional revenue would probably not
cover the cost of animal control. May well establish the expectation that the animal problem would
be solved.
Staff recommends Alternative # 1.
.
. r"''''''~';;''''''''''-''''I
................................... ..
-
To: Jim Genellie
From: Heather M. Alex
Date: Monday, November 14, 1994
Subject: Animal Control
The police department has examined the issues related to the potential impact on law
enforcement should the council choose to enact an ordinance to control cats in the City
of Hopkins.
The main issues appear to be as follows:
J Ability to provide proactive, thorough enforcement through the status quo
J Enforcement Options
. J Cost of such enforcement options
1. Ability to enforce a cat control ordinance
HPD responds to specific complaints on a "per call' basis. Normal protocol dictates
that animal complaint calls be dispatched first to the on-duty Public Service Officer, and
second to sworn police officers if a PSO is not available. PSQ's are required to fill in
for dispatcher vacations, sick leave, etc. which would take away from the animal control
function for an undetermined number of hours per week. Occasionally a delay in
response occurs due to the necessity of prioritizing calls and staffing allocations.
Certain specialized wildlife calls are handled on a contract basis by Wildlife
Management Services, a private contractor. Follow-up investigations, requests for
complaint, etc. are handled by the investigations division or the services division as
assigned.
We realize that the status quo, even with our best effort, can not meet all public
expectations of an aggressive animal control program. Increased demand for response
based on increased regulation may further dissatisfy public expectations, if the status
quo of enforcement is maintained.
.
. Another concern is the actual "enforceability" of a cat control ordinance. We project
that many of the calls received on cats would be of the "my neighbor's cat is under my
birdfeeder" variety, Although a violation, enforcement would be nearly impossible
unless the cat is wearing a tag identifying it, and is present on the caller's property
when officers arrive.
Unlicensed cats "at large" that are picked up are nearly never claimed and must be
destroyed. Although an ordinance would give us the authority to dispose of such
animals (we currently cannot pick up loose cats at all) the cost would be large and not
recoverable .Another consideration is prosecution costs. Often the miscreant animal is
gone when officers arrive. Unless the officer witnesses the incident (as above) the
police department has to request a complaint from the city prosecutor in order to
charge a misdemeanor case. We suspect that most of the cases on cats at large would
be dismissed at a substantial cost to the city both in staff time and prosecution fees.
2. Enforcement options & associated costs
.A proactive, thorough enforcement program would require additional resources.
Routine patrol, impoundment of animals in violation, prosecution of offenders and
community education should all be part of such a program and are much better
accomplished by a dedicated, well trained and adequately equipped animal control
professional.
. Several options have been discussed to deal with an increased public expectation of
animal control and ordinance enforcement, should the council choose to control cats.
A. Maintain the Status Quo
This option would require the least expense but for the abovementioned
reasons would probably result in the lowest level of customer satisfaction.
B. Hire a city employee dedicated to animal control functions
A public service officer, for example, could be dedicated to animal
control and could perform other duties when not actively engaged in
animal control. Cost: about $30,000.00 a year plus vehicle and
equipment. (Current PSO truck is not adequately equipped to
function effectively as an animal control vehicle: no separate
compartments, often re-assigned to patrol division and unavailable for
animal calls.) Most other cities we contacted have this method of animal
control, with the sworn police officers responding to calls when no PSO is
avialable. It works because there are usually one or more PSO's on duty
and they don't require their PSO's to cover dispatcher sick and vacation
. leave.
C. Contract with a private company for animal control services.
. S1. Louis Park currently contracts with Wildlife Management Services for animal
control. WMS provides a trained, professional animal control officer and all uniforms,
equipment (including vehicle) and training. This person is on duty 6 hours a day 6
days a week, performs all animal control functions in the city (SLP does not control
cats, however) and is on-call for after-hours emergencies (at additional cost). Routine
animal calls after hours are handled by police officers or community service officers but
are referred to the animal control officer for followup. This service costs SLP about
$30,000. a year. 51. Louis Park Police are extremely satisfied with the service
provided.
A question was raised whether Hopkins could contract for an "on-call" animal control
service only. There are issues involved going this route:
J response time: animal problems are often "gone" even when an immediate
response is generated. Having to wait for an on-call person to respond to a
page and travel to the City, get vehicle, etc. would probably almost always result
in an unacceptable response time. People generally don't want to listen to the
dog bark or the cats fight for another hour until the animal control person arrives.
J "Routine" on-call services are probably not available. \/VMS only provides
. on-call services for emergencies such as dog bite or injured animal.
J Costs of on-call services: WMS charges $29.00 per call. Calling a city
employee on overtime to respond would result in a minimum of two hours
overtime pay; or roughly the same amount for a PSO at starting salary.
The International City Manager's Association (leMA) recommends a budget of $3.00 -
$5.00/resident per city population. This would recommend a budget of $49,602.00 -
$82.670.00 for Hopkins. Our current animal control budget is $2500.00, but personnel
costs are not associated directly with animal control under our current system as they
are spread throughout the budget and various divisions.
The Police Department recommends the council not adopt a cat control ordinance,
because of concerns about enforceability and the potential for an "administrative
nightmare." We are concerned that such an ordinance could also fan the flames of
neighbor animosity and place the City in a position where, because it is nearly
impossible to control cats, we cannot possibly meet the expectations of the community.
Should the council choose to adopt such an ordinance, we recommend option number
3: a private animal control contract with a professional firm.
. cc: Chief Johnson