Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council delays action on revised humane-animal-services rules after extended debate over pit-bull provisions
Summary
Council reviewed amended humane-animal-services policies that add a pit-bull provision but agreed to give staff time to vet inspection, insurance and definition language; no adoption occurred at the meeting.
Council discussed an amended ordinance to update policies and procedures for the humane animal services department, including new provisions addressing pit bulls, but the council did not adopt the ordinance and asked staff for further review.
Council members raised multiple concerns: inspection language in earlier drafts appeared to require a search of owner premises (which one council member warned might implicate constitutional issues); staff said the intent was site inspection for compliance and proposed language requiring inspections only "after reasonable notice". Another area of debate was insurance: staff initially proposed a half-million-dollar ($500,000) insurance requirement but then noted reliable dog-liability policies typically top out near $100,000, meaning excessive insurance requirements could make compliance or registration impossible.
Members also questioned how breed identification would be handled (DNA tests are costly and not consistently reliable) and whether enforcement resources and recordkeeping would be sufficient. Several public commenters and council members suggested adding graduated fines and clearer penalty tiers rather than only extreme remedies.
Because staff has not completed a thorough vetting, council and staff agreed to read the amended ordinance once and return with staff recommendations and redline language; no final vote was taken.
