Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Baker City Council upholds kennel-permit denial after neighbors allege roaming cats
Summary
The council voted 4-2 to deny a kennel permit appeal for a Baker City resident after neighbors presented videos and testimony alleging roaming and nuisance behavior from dozens of cats; staff outlined a 30‑day compliance and enforcement path for the appellant.
The Baker City Council on Sept. 9 sustained the city’s denial of a kennel permit for a local resident after neighbors testified that dozens of cats were creating a nuisance and entering neighboring yards.
Staff told the council that code enforcement had reviewed complaints and found the resident kept more animals than permitted, recommending that the council sustain the denial based on a preponderance of evidence. Kimberly Doyle, who identified herself as residing at 3210 9th Street, said she had taken in stray and owner-surrendered cats and that the animals were vaccinated, mostly kept indoors and cared for because they were “older cats” with limited adoption prospects.
Neighbors countered with video and photographic evidence and on-the-record testimony alleging property damage, cat urine on vehicles and persistent incursions into yards. One neighbor, identifying herself as Vera Brian, said she had hours of video showing cats entering her property and described damage to personal items.
Council discussion focused on enforceability. One councilor proposed allowing the animals to remain only if the owner installed a non-escapable enclosure and code enforcement verified compliance within 30 days. Other councilors raised concerns that an enclosure could be temporary and not a sustainable long-term solution.
A motion to deny the permit carried 4-2. Councilors directed staff to meet with the appellant to explain the next steps and enforcement timeline. Staff said they would work with code enforcement to outline compliance steps; the council noted that sustained denial would require removal, sale or transfer of animals if compliance was not achieved within the prescribed timeline.
The city advised the appellant to contact the city manager’s office for appeal and procedural information. The council’s action ends with a formal denial on the record; an appeal to a higher authority was discussed but no specific appellate route was recorded in the minutes.
