Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ordinance Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ordinance and animal‑control staff press for more officers, clothing allowances and higher director pay; animal services contract budget to rise
Summary
Ordinance and animal‑control leadership requested more full‑time officers, a modest clothing allowance, and an increase in the director’s salary; staff also warned the city’s animal‑care contract (noted in the packet) requires a higher annual appropriation to cover contracted services and euthanasia/quarantine costs.
Ordinance and animal‑control staff told the council they are short‑staffed and need additional full‑time positions and budget support to keep up with high call volumes and animal calls.
The ordinance director said the department is shown as 10 employees on the personnel page but currently has nine filled positions; a part‑time hire will start May 1. He reminded council members that the city previously passed a resolution calling for additional ordinance officers and asked the administration to honor that staffing level; he asked that the budget reflect the full number of positions the council has approved.
On uniforms, animal‑control staff requested a clothing allowance to cover shirts, pants and boots that wear out during field work. The animal‑control director said the department has already placed orders for shirts and pants and asked the council to transfer a modest balance to the next fiscal year to cover additional purchases; council members agreed to move $1,000 forward as an interim accommodation.
Council and staff also discussed director compensation for ordinance. Administration noted the ordinance director’s salary is among the lowest of department directors (about $80,000) and several council members recommended raising the director’s pay toward an $85,000 threshold to match peers; no final salary adjustment was adopted during the session.
On contracted animal services, staff told the council the contract with the provider (discussed as the city’s animal‑care contractor) will require an increased appropriation to cover the vendor’s new rates and any quarantine or euthanasia costs the city is responsible for when the owner cannot be identified. Staff recommended increasing the line to cover the contract; a staff member proposed raising the line to roughly $117,000 (from a lower budgeted amount) to create a modest cushion to pay contractual obligations and animal care costs.
Staff and council members repeatedly framed the ordinance office as a high‑call, high‑demand department that frequently fields resident complaints and suggested the council should continue examining pay and staffing levels during contract negotiations and future budget amendments.
