Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kankakee committee delays vote on $35,000 animal‑control contract over fee‑recovery questions
Summary
The Building and Code Safety Committee reviewed a proposed $35,000 annual contract with the county animal‑control service but postponed sending it forward after members said the city lacks clarity on whether the county would still collect owner fees and whether the city could recoup charges.
At its Aug. 21 meeting, the Building and Code Safety Committee discussed a proposed contract that would pay a county animal‑control service a flat $35,000 a year to provide animal‑control services for the city. Committee members agreed not to take a final vote and asked the director to invite the animal‑control provider to the next meeting for clarification.
The committee’s discussion focused on two questions: whether the flat $35,000 would cover all charges that appear on the monthly animal‑control bills and whether the county would continue to collect fees directly from pet owners when animals are returned. Director Nelson said, “From my understanding and the way I read the contract is we wouldn't have any extra fees. Right. That flat $35,000 a year, it wouldn't be any extra fees, for special charges or it wouldn't be anything extra.”
Committee members pushed back that current monthly bills show charges the city pays now and that, under the proposed contract, the city would still be unable to recoup charges from pet owners. One member summarized the concern: signing the contract could add roughly $10,000 in annual cost compared with current monthly bills while leaving the city responsible for charges it currently pays and not recovering owner fees.
Members asked for several items before deciding whether to forward the contract to the full council: a representative of the animal‑control provider at the next committee meeting, a copy of the provider’s proposed Chapter 10 (animal‑control) code or ordinance language the city would adopt, and the exact contract being offered. The director was asked to email the latest proposal and contract to committee members so they could review it before the next meeting.
The committee also discussed operational tradeoffs: some members said contracting animal control could remove routine animal calls from the police and code departments and shorten response chains for residents; others said if the county continues to collect pickup fees from owners, the city would not recoup those amounts and the contract’s added cost would have little benefit.
No formal motion to approve the contract was made or voted on during the meeting. The committee directed Director Nelson to contact the animal‑control provider and request that a representative attend the next meeting to answer fee‑recovery and code‑adoption questions so the committee can decide whether to forward the contract to the full council.
