Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Kennel Licensing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Task force debates kennel definition, ordinance edits and enforcement gaps
Summary
Members discussed whether kennels should be classified as businesses under 'MCA 6C,' distinctions between kennel licenses and multi-animal permits, proposed wording changes to the draft ordinance, and concerns that weak enforcement language could make parts of the ordinance unenforceable.
The Domestic Animal Task Force met March 26, 2025, at the West Valley Fire Station to discuss how the county should define and regulate kennels, multi-animal permits and enforcement. Task force members flagged possible double taxation if kennels are classified as businesses under 'MCA 6C' and proposed several targeted edits to clarify the draft ordinance.
Why it matters: The classification of kennels and the wording of enforcement provisions will determine which local offices handle permitting, how properties are regulated, and whether residents or small business operators face duplicate fees or inconsistent enforcement.
Members discussed the difference between a kennel license and a multi-animal permit and emphasized that issuing authority should be clarified. According to the task force record, permit issuance decisions should rest with the CEO or a designated authority rather than the Public Health Department, which participants said lacks training and jurisdiction for animal inspections. The task force recommended supplying supporting documentation, including references to USDA Animal and Plant Codes, when applying animal unit standards beyond dogs and cats to determine space requirements.
The minutes cite a written point attributed to Carl Hamming that properties under 11,000 square feet would be ineligible for kennel designation; task force members said that threshold could simplify zoning adjudication but would require clear language in the ordinance. Jeffery Miles and others urged reliance on objective animal-unit standards to determine whether animals are kept as pets or as part of a business or ranching operation.
Task force members also raised practical concerns for enforcement. Michelle Lennon warned that failing to spell out enforcement mechanisms could render local provisions unenforceable and shift responsibility to another agency. Kevin Hart flagged nuisance issues, specifically excessive dog barking, as an item requiring clearer remedies. Tom Lamb noted interactions with local wildlife, including mountain lions, as another factor the ordinance should address.
On specific text edits, Michelle Lennon proposed: specifying that Section 4A require rabies vaccination for dogs, cats and ferrets and removing a redundant sentence; replacing the word "such" with "unvaccinated animal" in Section 4B; substituting "department" for references to "nurse/director" in Sections 4D and 4F; and removing references to the Public Health Department in Sections 6 C1, A, C, and D. Members agreed to produce a red-line draft when formal revisions begin.
The task force recommended procedural steps to support drafting and outreach: Tom Lamb advised providing physical copies of the draft at meetings; Vern Tuss offered to print those copies; Jessica Wicks volunteered to create a Facebook page for communications. Bill Willing recommended adding property acreage and related questions to permit application forms to help streamline staff evaluations.
Next steps include producing a red-line ordinance draft, assembling supporting documentation for animal unit standards, and clarifying enforcement language so responsibility and remedies are explicit. The task force adjourned at 7:19 p.m.
