City staff on Monday proposed allocating up to $60,000 from the animal control fund reserves, in addition to $20,000 already in the levy, to continue a three-officer community service officer (CSO) animal-control enforcement program.

The proposal matters because, staff said, the animal control fund is legally separate from the city’s levy and expenditure-restraint calculations; using the fund’s reserves would not affect the city’s levy limits or expenditure restraint. Finance staff and the police chief urged action to prevent a deep cut that could reduce enforcement, licensing and future fund balance.

Police Chief Barnes said the CSO program “is going great right now with 3 CSOs,” and that early-season licensing work this year produced about 1,000 additional licenses. He told the committee that the department would like the committee “to amend our budget to allocate 60,000 up to $60,000 of those reserve funds that remain from previous years, to be used to fund the CSO twos.”

Barnes and other staff described the revenue sensitivity of the animal control fund. “We do have approximately 90,719 in our animal control fund,” a staff member said, and fund balance changes “depend on enforcement” and licensing compliance. Barnes added that if CSO enforcement pushes up licensing, “more dollars can go into the animal control fund” in future years.

The chief also told the committee that contracted “held for cause” sheltering with the Humane Society can be costly and unpredictable. He estimated that non-dog strays handled under a cat contract this year would total “between a hundred and 50 and 200 non dog strays,” and said held-for-cause cases driven by abuse or neglect can range widely in cost. He gave a concrete unit cost used for planning: “$180 apiece at [the Humane Society],” and said those per-animal charges factor into the fund’s volatility.

Committee members asked whether using economic-development or other one-time funds might cover the CSO cost, but staff advised that the animal control reserves are the most appropriate one-time source because those reserves were accumulated specifically within the animal control fund. Alder Kenny noted that if reserve money is not spent, “it flows right back to reserves,” and Mary Anne, finance staff, confirmed the reserves are earmarked to that fund.

Discussion-only outcome: the committee did not adopt a formal motion during the session; members agreed to hold the proposal while they examine other budget items and prepare amendments for a future meeting.

Ending: The committee asked staff to prepare an amendment for consideration that would allocate the reserve money and the $20,000 levy already in the budget to keep the three CSO positions funded; no formal vote or ordinance change was recorded at the meeting.