Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Councilors question humane‑society kenneling costs and animal‑control workload amid Pete's Safari debate
Summary
Council members raised concerns about the costs and scope of the city's contract with the Central Nebraska Humane Society and the practice of impounding all animals at large, noting high per‑animal kenneling fees and repeated pickups — a factor in broader animal control policy discussions.
During the council’s July 28 meeting, several council members pressed staff and the police chief about the city’s animal control practices and a no‑bid kenneling contract with the Central Nebraska Humane Society.
Councilmember Hazy said the city’s expenses for kenneling and animal pickups appear larger than the single kenneling line item on the packet, suggesting the true monthly cost could be substantially higher when pickup and transport are included: "That's just the kenneling bill... I imagine there's another 30,000 because these were all ACO pickup and taken out there," he said, estimating the combined monthly cost of kenneling and pickups could approach "probably 50,000 in a month." He urged code changes so the city does not have to impound every small animal found running at large.
Chief Denny responded that the department is willing to follow council direction: "I'm more than happy to do the bidding of the council with regard to what exactly you'd like to do, and we can always hammer something out and be more specific about that." He noted the city has reviewed alternatives and found limited options for kennel services in the region but said staff would continue to work with council on procurement and code changes.
Councilmembers supported pursuing a clearer, more consistent policy, including whether to require bids for the kenneling contract. Members also asked to be part of meetings with the Humane Society procurement discussions and discussed options to target ACO resources to dangerous animals while reducing costs tied to picking up small, non‑dangerous animals such as rabbits or chickens.
No formal policy change was adopted that night; council directed staff to continue discussions and, where appropriate, run procurement for replacement contracts.
