Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ferguson council introduces ordinance to repeal dog-license requirement
Summary
The council introduced an ordinance repealing the city’s dog-license requirement and discussed the low uptake and administrative cost of the program. The law would remove a largely unenforced licensing rule; no final vote was taken at first reading.
The Ferguson City Council on first reading introduced an ordinance to repeal the city’s dog-license requirement, saying the rule produced minimal revenue and was not enforced.
Assistant City Manager Musgrave told the council the city sold just three dog licenses last year and had budgeted roughly $300 for license sales the previous year. The existing fee is $3 for a spayed or neutered dog and $6 for an intact dog, Musgrave said.
Why it matters: Supporters of repeal said the license requirement is effectively dormant — the city does not enforce it and sells few licenses — and that addressing dangerous or menacing animals is already covered by a separate, stricter dangerous-animal ordinance enacted earlier this year.
What happened in the meeting
- The ordinance (introduced as Bill 7312) was read by title during the meeting’s ordinance introductions. The reading described the change as repealing chapter 7, section 6-4 (dog-license requirement) from the Ferguson municipal code.
- Council discussion: A councilmember who introduced the repeal said the license provision had not produced enforcement or revenue. Council members asked administrative questions about the current fee and whether owners were in violation; one councilmember disclosed that they personally owned dogs that were technically in violation of the existing rule.
- No final vote: The item was introduced and discussed at first reading; the council took no final vote on the repeal at the hearing.
Representative quote
- “Last year, the city sold a grand total of three dog licenses,” Assistant City Manager Musgrave told council members during the ordinance introduction and discussion.
What’s next
The ordinance remains at first reading. If the council places it on a subsequent agenda it could return for a final vote at a future meeting; until then the licensing requirement remains on the books but is not actively enforced, according to city staff.
