Council advances Humane Society MOU to regular meeting after lengthy animal‑control debate

Police Chief Kevin Jurian told the committee he negotiated a proposed hybrid agreement with the local Humane Society and described it as a trial to give police more options for handling serious animal cases. ‘‘We come up with a hybrid situation, a deal that we could check it out for a year, see how it goes,’’ Jurian said, adding that the Humane Society board reviewed and returned a proposed MOU.

Council members pressed for financial and operational clarity. Councilor Currence said the city has $60,000 in animal control funds and that the proposed contract covers $48,000 for up to 160 eligible dogs (bite, abuse, neglect and seizure cases), leaving about $12,000 for additional costs such as veterinary care or hoarding situations. Currence urged strict reporting so the city can be reimbursed when owners reclaim animals and to avoid ‘‘double dipping’’ citizens for fees.

City attorney Pat told the council that municipalities are not automatically liable for every uncollected code violation and that the proposed agreement is optional, while also flagging tools the city could use—such as a municipal infraction for repeat offenders—to recover costs and deter repeat violations. Pat said auditors will also need to see financial reporting whenever the city gives money to a charitable organization.

Council member Celeste called the MOU ‘‘a step in the right direction’’ compared with the current zero‑option status: ‘‘This is something versus nothing,’’ she said, while noting the agreement does not cover cats and will not solve all problems alone. Staff confirmed the MOU allows the city or either party to leave the agreement.

Public commentators described capacity and enforcement concerns. A speaker identifying as Big River Canine Coach said the city averaged about 857 animals a year going to the humane society on a multi‑year average, while the police accounted for roughly 150 animal impounds, and warned that routine strays are not the focus of this agreement; a resident, Linda Coppess, recounted rescuing a dog and asked where citizens should take animals in need.

After debate about language (the document used both 'contract' and 'MOU') and a request that financial reporting be included, Council Member Cody Seely moved to clean up the draft, move it to a regular business meeting and set Council Member Lee as the liaison. The motion passed on a unanimous roll‑call vote.

What the motion does: it sends the revised agreement to a regular council meeting for approval, with language edits and a liaison assignment; council did not finalize the contract at the committee meeting.

Why it matters: the agreement would give the police department a formal, paid option for handling serious animal‑welfare cases (bites, seizures, abuse) that officers currently lack; council members emphasized limits (cats excluded, capacity caps, hoarding cases) and stressed that any recurring costs or reclaimed‑animal reimbursements must be tracked and returned to the city when appropriate.

Next steps: staff will standardize the document language (contract vs. MOU), include required financial reporting terms, and bring the cleaned‑up item to a future regular council meeting for a final vote. Council Member Lee will serve as liaison to receive monthly financials and monitor implementation.