Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Ordinance Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Evansville board begins ordinance overhaul: proposes shorter stray holds and formal community-cat pathway
Summary
Board members, staff and the city council liaison discussed draft changes to Evansville’s animal ordinances including shorter stray-hold periods, a community-cat exception to return healthy free-roaming cats faster, and exploring a bond system for dangerous animals; council liaison and staff were asked to refine language for a future vote.
Evansville’s Animal Care and Control Board began drafting ordinance changes intended to speed reclaim and reduce shelter euthanasia, particularly among cats, while clarifying procedures for dangerous animals.
At the meeting, board counsel and staff presented draft language and compared local rules with practices in other Indiana cities. Missy Mosby, Second Ward city councilor and the board’s liaison, told members she supported moving the process forward and would consult with the council’s attorney to coordinate next steps. Board counsel said the package emphasizes clearer definitions (for example, “potentially dangerous” versus “dangerous” animals) and recommended considering process changes used in other jurisdictions, including Fort Wayne and Marion County, that incorporate bond procedures and different hearing workflows.
Discussion centered on three linked topics: stray-hold periods, a community-cat pathway, and logistics for a bond system or impound-release process. Animal control staff and board members debated reducing Evansville’s current seven-day stray-hold period. Several members and staff proposed shorter holds: a common compromise floated at the meeting was four business days for dogs, three for typical cats, and a 24-hour turnaround for otherwise healthy free-roaming cats that qualify for a community-cat program and can be spayed/neutered and ear-tipped immediately.
Animal control staff raised practical concerns about how to implement bonds for dangerous-dog holds because current county systems do not funnel bond payments through animal-control offices. Board members and the liaison asked staff to explore whether the county clerk or animal control could accept bond payments and to identify required software, accounting and refund procedures. Board counsel noted state law constraints and recommended further legal and operational research before writing final ordinance language.
Board members also discussed reclaim fees, microchip and vaccination verification, and partnerships with rescue groups that already implant and register microchips. Staff said most microchips implanted by rescue organizations are nationally registered and can be queried by animal control; members asked staff to prepare draft ordinance text and sample process language, and to present data on reclaim timings and shelter outcomes at the next meeting.
Board members agreed to compile model ordinances and proposed language, then circulate drafts by email for review before the next meeting. The liaison said she would take the board’s recommendations to the city-council process once the board had settled on final language.
