Kankakee committee debates animal control contract, fees and collection challenges

The Kankakee City Building and Code Safety Committee spent the bulk of its February meeting discussing a proposed contract with Kankakee County Animal Control that would let residents contact county animal control directly and shift operational responsibility for stray and public-safety animal calls, committee members and county staff said.

Committee members and county staff said the contract aims to speed response times and reduce follow-up between 9-1-1, the police department and city code staff, but it also raises questions about cost and the city—s ability to recoup fees from pet owners. Director Nelson said the city currently pays roughly in the low tens of thousands annually for county animal-control responses and that a contract could increase that outlay; the committee reviewed county line-item bills and earlier-year summaries during the discussion.

County animal-control Director Carrie Laird described the department—s billing and service practices. Laird said after-hours pickup calls are billed to the municipality at $100 and daytime pickup calls at $50; when an owner reclaims an animal, the owner pays impound, boarding and care charges. "Any bites to a human from a dog or a cat, we will go out for no matter what it is," Laird said, saying those public-safety responses are not billed to the municipality. She also said municipalities under contract receive monthly activity statements and can obtain owner information when an owner is known so the municipality may pursue fines or citations through its own process.

Committee members pressed two recurring concerns: (1) the total cost to the city under a fixed contract and (2) whether the city can effectively recover fees from owners. Several members said the city—s internal records show annual charges in the high-teens to mid-20-thousand-dollar range depending on year and that a multi-year contract figure discussed by the committee would be noticeably higher. Director Nelson and Laird both noted that a contract could be billed as a credit/retainer that is reconciled against activity rather than a separate monthly invoice.

On fee recovery, Director Nelson told the committee collecting fines from animal owners is often difficult because addresses or owner contact information are not always current; she warned that writing municipal tickets and pursuing adjudication or collection has administrative costs and does not guarantee recovery. Laird said the county can forward owner charges and will provide the municipality with the data needed to pursue municipal citations, but she cautioned that county adjudication and county collection procedures differ from municipal processes.

Committee members proposed several follow-ups the committee requested be provided before any vote on a contract: the county—s full chapter-10 code text and fee schedule referenced in the proposed agreement; a two-year city spending review cross‑checked with the county billings; written after-hours and emergency response guidelines; and a clarification of which calls would remain under city/police authority versus county response. Aldermen also asked the county to explore whether a fixed per-incident municipal fee or an intergovernmental line item could be added to facilitate municipal recovery of some costs.

The committee left the item on "old business" for further review at a future meeting and asked county staff to email the requested fee schedule and ordinance language to Director Nelson for distribution to committee members.