CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

Transcription

1 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Subject: ANIMAL BYLAW REVIEW Recommendation(s): 1. That a new Animal Bylaw be brought forward for Council s consideration that addresses any legal errors, omissions, and updates legal terminology, formatting and definitions, and repeals Bylaw 38/78 and all amendments thereto. 2. That dangerous and/or aggressive dog provisions including a new dangerous dog licence fee be added into a new Animal Bylaw draft. 3. That a requirement for a person to have a means of picking up dog waste while walking dogs, be added into a new Animal Bylaw draft. 4. That a late payment fee for dog licences be added into a new Animal Bylaw draft. 5. That new provisions be added requiring a person to keep a dog on a leash at all times except when it is under control in a park, be added into a new Animal Bylaw draft. 6. That the provisions related to prohibiting other animals such as pigs, goats, pigeons and chickens be added into a new Animal Bylaw draft. 7. That the draft new Animal Bylaw be brought forward for Council s consideration by the end of March Report Summary: Administration has completed its review of the Animal Bylaw. The review involved looking at the current legislation, the number and types of recorded animal related complaints and incidents, the statistics and animal license data as well as a comparison of the Bylaw to other municipalities legislation. In addition, Administration surveyed the public for their opinions on animal control matters. Significant Findings: Many errors, omissions, redundancy in Bylaw format and terminology. No enforceable or effective provisions for dangerous or aggressive dogs. Dog on-leash / off-leash provisions are opposite to all other researched Bylaws. Cat Regulation Findings: No prohibition for roaming cats or requiring licensing of cats in St. Albert. Home owners can currently humanely trap cats on private property and use other deterrents without a Municipal Bylaw. City Council Agenda September 24, 2012/Page 1 File No.: 405-2

2 Cat regulations and services vary amongst Municipalities. Respondents were more likely (70/30) to support a cat Bylaw if it could be done without an increase in spending. Respondents were split (50/50) on this matter if it meant an increase in spending for this new service. 14% of the community is dissatisfied with Animal Control Services. Of the 14%, 24% were dissatisfied because there are no cat regulations 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey Estimated to cost $160K to $200K in the 1 st Year. Ongoing operating expenses between $100K and $130K. Other Findings Limited support for permitting pigs, goats, chickens in residential areas. Dog waste not being picked up is an ongoing concern for residents. Overdue Dog license enforcement continues to be a challenge for Administration Other Notable Findings 86% of residents are either satisfied or neutral with current Animal Control Services Provided 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey 14% of the community is dissatisfied with Animal Control Services. Of the 14%, 65% were dissatisfied because of a lack of enforcement of some type 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey #1 respondent recommendation for handling disruptive or dangerous dogs - increase enforcement even if it meant an increase in spending to do so Animal Bylaw Survey To assist Council in its decision making Administration has attached to this report: A detailed report outlining Administration s findings (Attachment 1) The Animal Bylaw Survey Report and Summary (Attachment 2) Various Animal related statistics (Attachment 3) The current Animal Control Bylaw 38/78 (Attachment 4) Legislative History: On November 21, 2011 Council passed the following motion: (C ) That by September 24, 2012 Administration will review Animal Bylaw 38/78. This review shall include bringing forward options and justification for the possibility of licensing cats. Report: The review identified a number of legal errors, omissions and redundancy with the current Bylaw format and terminology. Administration believes that the only way to properly remedy these issues would be to draft a new Animal Bylaw versus attempting to make specific amendments for each case. Although statistics have shown that St. Albert does not necessarily have a dangerous or aggressive dog problem, there have been a few cases where officers have had a reasonable belief that a dog was a danger to the general public. Administration identified that there are no current provisions or an effective way to handle or deal with dangerous or aggressive dogs in the current Bylaw and as such is recommending that new provisions be introduced. Through consultation and general feedback received, residents have identified concerns about people not picking up their dog s waste while on walks. There is currently a provision in the Bylaw that prohibits this activity however it is an activity that is very difficult to enforce. As a result, a new provision is being recommended that would require all dog walkers to have a bag with them while on a walk. This will allow officers the opportunity to proactively deal with and educate dog walkers on the issue. City Council Agenda September 24, 2012/Page 1 File No.: 405-2

3 Administration has found that there is an ongoing trend of excessive overdue dog license accounts and as a result has to spend considerable resources in reminding dog owners about their outstanding accounts and following up to ensure licenses are obtained. This has been estimated to cost the municipality approximately $20,000 per year mainly in human resources. As a result, Administration proposes that a late payment fee for dog licenses be introduced in order to gain and promote more voluntary compliance in this area. This will ultimately reduce the number of hours spent in dog license account follow up and allow resources to be focused in other areas. Currently in St. Albert, dogs are permitted off-leash in all areas in the City except for designated onleash areas. Administration has found that St. Albert is the only known municipality that has this type of philosophy when it comes to dog control legislation. Administration has also found that there are a number of enforcement challenges with this type of framework. In addition there is evidence to suggest that it has caused some confusion among many residents, both dog and non-dog owners. As a result, Administration recommends that this philosophy be reversed and that the new requirement would be for dogs to be on-leash at all times except in off-leash areas. Administration also recommends that all parks except for tot lots continue to be considered off-leash areas at this time. As part of this review, Council requested that Administration bring forward information as it relates to the licensing of cats. Administration does not recommend any new cat control or licensing provisions at this time. This is due to the mixed feedback from the public on the matter as well as the costs associated to providing this new service to the community. Administration reviewed other aspects of animal control as it related to permitting pigs, goats, residential chickens as well as homing pigeons. Administration found that there was limited support for permitting these types of animals in residential areas. As well, permitting them would have Land Use Bylaw implications as it relates to structures such as pens and coops to contain the animals. Administration has found that there has been some confusion on this matter due to the fact that these activities are prohibited in the Land Use Bylaw but not prohibited in the Animal Bylaw. As a result Administration recommends that some provisions be added in the Animal Bylaw that specifically prohibits the harboring of these animals to compliment the Land Use Bylaw restriction. Options: If Council is not satisfied with Administration s recommendations the following are some optional motions Council may want to consider: 1. That the agenda report, Review of Animal Bylaw be received as information. If this option were selected Administration would consider this matter closed and no further work would happen as it relates to the Animal Bylaw at this time. 2. That the agenda report, Review of the Animal Bylaw be referred back to Administration for further research that is to be guided by the general discussion that was had by Council. If this option were selected Administration would conduct further research in the areas that Council had discussed and would come back with a report on the findings. 3. That provisions related to prohibiting cats from roaming on private property without the permission of the owner as well as the requirement for cat owners to obtain licences as outlined in the Council agenda report from September 24, 2012, be added into a new Animal Bylaw draft and be brought forward for Council s consideration by the end of February 2013 with an implementation goal of January 1, That provisions related to prohibiting cats from roaming on public property and private property without the permission of the owner as well as the requirement for cat owners to obtain licences as outlined in the Council agenda report from September 24, 2012, be added into a new Animal Bylaw draft and be brought forward for Council s consideration by the end of February 2013 with an implementation goal of January 1, City Council Agenda September 24, 2012/Page 2 File No.: 405-2

4 Link to Council or Corporate Objectives: Council Goals Governance Capacity and Policy Direction - Review and modernize selected bylaws. Updating the Animal Bylaw as recommended fits in with Council s Goal of reviewing and modernizing selected Bylaws. Corporate Objectives - Deliver programs and services that meet or exceed our standards. Updating the Animal Bylaw fits in with the corporate objective of delivering programs and services that meet or exceed our standards. This is accomplished indirectly by providing a framework for officers to work within. Without an adequate framework, enforcement and educational efforts can not be maximized and this directly impacts resident satisfaction. Financial Implications: There are no direct financial implications as a result of Administration s recommendations. There will however be considerable work required to properly draft a new Animal Bylaw. It must be noted that with the updating of legislation and clarity around on-leash provisions, the Municipal Enforcement area may see an increase in calls for service. With every extra layer of service expectations it increases the future need to add resources to keep up with the expectations and the laws to enforce. If Council chooses to increase service levels in the area of cat regulation and control, it is estimated to cost between $160,000 to $200,000 in the first year and an ongoing net expense between $100,000 and $130,000. It must also be noted that this does not take into account the increases in workload in the complaint taking/dispatch centre or front counter services at the RCMP and City Hall as it relates to making complaints, claiming of cats or purchasing of licenses. Each of these areas will be directly impacted by this service level increase. Administration would also like to advise Council that these estimates are based on an assumption that a viable kennel contract to house cats can be secured. If this is not secured, Administration would be required to consider operating its own kennel facility. This could have a significant financial impact. Legal Implications: The Municipal Government Act ( MGA ) provides that municipalities may pass bylaws respecting wild and domestic animals. The MGA allows municipalities to establish fees for licensing, i.e. doubling a dog license fee if not paid by a specific date. Additionally, the MGA allows municipalities to deal with thing[s] in different ways, divide each of them into classes and deal with each class in a different way, i.e. imposing an increased license fee for dogs that are deemed dangerous or aggressive. Some language contained in the current Animal Bylaw is somewhat dated and as indicated in this report, contains some errors, omissions and redundancies that could be corrected with a re-write of it, for instance, the discrepancy between the Animal Bylaw and the Land Use Bylaw in relation to livestock. Attachments: 1. Animal Bylaw Review Details 2. Animal Bylaw Survey Report and Summary 3. Animal Statistics 4. Animal Bylaw No. 38/78 Report Date September 24, 2012 Originating Department Policing Services Prepared by: Aaron Giesbrecht Approved by Chris Jardine City Manager Review Patrick Draper City Council Agenda September 24, 2012/Page 3 File No.: 405-2

5 ATTACHMENT 1 Animal Bylaw Review Detail Preamble The Animal Bylaw was originally enacted in 1978 shortly after the first Bylaw enforcement officer was hired in There have been a number of amendments throughout the years including some significant ones in 1982, 1986 and Since 1998 only minor amendments were made that relate mainly to dog license fees. As a result of Council s direction to review this Bylaw, Administration developed an animal bylaw survey to allow the community to express their views on animal control matters. The survey was broken down into a number of categories that included a general information section, a dog and cat control section, other animal control section and a licensing section. There were approximately 800 responses to the survey and over 300 general comments made about various animal control matters. Administration will be referring to some specific responses throughout the agenda report. The completed survey results and summary of comments are included in Attachment 2. It must be noted and taken into consideration that the survey was developed in house and is not statistically sound. It was developed with the parameter of one response be household (or IP address). Administration has reviewed the survey data for duplicate IP addresses and responses and as a result does not believe there was any manipulation of the survey that impacted the results. Administration believes that the survey s results are valuable and offer some insight into public opinion however Administration cannot claim that the results are scientific or that the results are representative of the community as a whole. Administration has also included a number of other statistics in Attachment 3 that may be of use for Council when deliberating on these matters. Animal Bylaw General Administration identified a number of legal errors, omissions and legal redundancies within the current Bylaw format and terminology. Administration believes that the only way to properly remedy these issues would be to draft a new Animal Bylaw versus attempting to make specific amendments for each case. One of the major examples of this is an inadequate penalty section. The penalty section only makes certain offences illegal versus all the provisions of the Bylaw. This is generally inconsistent with other City bylaws and leads to a misunderstanding of the actual prohibitions of the Bylaw. While updating this area, Administration recommends cleaning up a number of other provisions including rabies control and the harboring of wild animals. Dangerous/Aggressive Dog Provisions The statistics below reveal that over the last 5 years St. Albert has averaged approximately 21 reported dog bites on humans and 8 dog bite on other animals (mainly dogs) per year. Anecdotally, enforcement officers do not believe that St. Albert has a dangerous dog problem, however there have been a few cases over the years that has concerned officers and resulted in them taking action under the Provincial Dangerous Dog Act. Most of the attacks that have occurred have been relatively minor in nature, but there have been a few attacks and bites that have caused significant injuries to humans as well as dog to dog fatalities. 1

6 ATTACHMENT 1 St. Albert Dog Bite Numbers by Year Dog Bite Animal Dog Bite Human June YTD Reported Dog Bites per population Medicine Hat Leduc n/a Sherwood Park St Albert Edmonton Grande Prairie 2.6 Airdrie 2.2 Lethbridge * Note: Every community tracks and scores dog bite incidents a little differently and therefore the statistics need to be viewed in that light. Additionally it is important to be aware that this is reported incidents and some communities may have different reported rates as well as have a different dog per population rate which could account for a heightened bite per population rate. A licensed dog per population rate has been included in Attachment 3. 2

7 ATTACHMENT 1 Most respondents in the Animal Bylaw survey reported that they are not at all concerned about dangerous dogs in the community. Having said this, 23% of respondents were still Very Concerned and 29% of respondents reported that a dog caused them to fear for their own safety or the safety of a family member within the last year. Animal Bylaw Survey Results Dangerous Dogs Which of the following best describes the extent to which you are personally concerned about DANGEROUS dogs in St Albert? Very concerned 23% 178 Moderately concerned 18% 142 Mildly concerned 28% 215 Not at all concerned 31% 240 Total Responses 775 Administration has identified that there are no real provisions or an effective way to handle or deal with dangerous or aggressive dogs in the current Bylaw. There is a section that makes some reference to Vicious Dogs however it does not define what a vicious dog is. The only other provision that relates to a dangerous or aggressive dog provides enforcement through the general provision of having a dog out of control. This provision does not speak to the severity of incident and makes no distinction between a small friendly dog that happen to get loose from a yard and more aggressive vicious dog that may have bitten or attacked someone. The provision is the same and the specified penalty is the same. Officers have the ability to have a hearing under the Provincial Dangerous Dog Act. This legislation allows for the court to order a dog to be euthanized or specify control conditions such as the wearing of a muzzle at all times when off the property. This legislation is useful at times however it can be a time consuming process and the penalty for disobeying a Dangerous Dog Act order is only five dollars/day. Administration has found a number of provisions in other Municipal Bylaws that relate to these issues and believes that similar provisions should be added to St. Albert s bylaw. Specifically, provisions that would make it an offence for a dog to chase, bite or attack a human or other animal. In addition to specific aggressive dog behavior restrictions, Administration recommends that the Municipal Enforcement Officers be granted the authority to deem a dog dangerous and impose additional restrictions and conditions upon dog owners. This would allow for an effective response to any dangerous or aggressive dog matters. It is recommended that an appeal mechanism also be introduced. Administration also recommends introducing an increased license fee for dogs that are deemed dangerous or aggressive under the new provision. This increased fee recognizes the increased costs associated in investigating, reviewing and proactively dealing with a dog that has been deemed dangerous. 3

8 ATTACHMENT 1 Animal Bylaw Survey Results Dangerous Dog Conditions If a dog is believed to pose a threat to the public, do you believe that the animal control bylaw should enable officers to put extra conditions on dog owners to prevent future occurrences? (For example requiring a dog owner to muzzle a dog when on a walk) Yes 91% 705 No 9% 74 Total Responses 779 Dog Waste Through consultation and general feedback received over the years, residents have identified an ongoing concern about people not picking up their dog s waste while on walks. 44% of respondents in the Animal Bylaw survey reported that within the last year their lifestyle was interrupted once a week or more by dog owners not picking up after their dogs. There is currently a provision in the Bylaw that prohibits this activity and the penalty is the highest in the Bylaw (1 st offence $250 and 2 nd offence $500). Despite the high penalty placed on this offence it has proven to be a challenge to enforce. In order for there to be enough evidence for officers to issue a ticket someone must witness the offence and as a result, few charges have been laid over the years. Administration recognizes the need for more education, officer presence and a heightened sense of priority in this area. As a result, a provision that requires dog walkers to have a means to pick up their own dog s waste while on a walk is being recommended. This would mean that dog walkers would have to have a bag with them at all times when on walk and they would have to produce and show officers that they have one on request. This will allow officers the opportunity to proactively deal with and educate dog walkers on the issue. This provision makes the assumption that if a person has bag with them, they will be more likely to pick up their dog s waste. This new provision was strongly supported in the Animal Bylaw Survey that was conducted. Animal Bylaw Survey Results Dog waste Do you support making it mandatory for dog owners to carry a bag or other means of picking up their dog's feces when on a walk? Yes 94% 734 No 6% 45 Total Responses 779 Dog Licensing The current Animal Bylaw provisions require all dog owners to get a license within 14 days of taking ownership of a dog over six months of age or moving to the community with a dog over 6 months of age. It also requires licensed dog owners to renew their license ever calendar year by January 31. 4

9 ATTACHMENT 1 Administration has found that there is an ongoing trend of excessive overdue dog license accounts and as a result has to spend considerable resources in reminding dog owners about their outstanding accounts and following up to ensure licenses are obtained. This has been estimated to cost the municipality approximately $20,000 per year mainly in human resources. Administration proposes that a late payment fee be introduced in order to gain and promote more voluntary compliance in this area. It is anticipated that this will ultimately reduce the number of hours spent in overdue dog license account follow ups and allow resources to be focused in other areas. As well, the late payment fee introduced will assist in offsetting the costs associated to following up with overdue accounts. Administration recommends that the dog license fee be doubled if it is not paid by the due date. This new provision was strongly supported in the recent Animal Bylaw Survey. Animal Bylaw Survey Results Overdue Dog Licenses Following up and collecting overdue dog licenses costs the City approximately $20,000 a year. Knowing this, do you support a pet license structure that would in essence add a late penalty fee if a license was not paid on time? Yes 86% 660 No 14% 110 Total Responses 770 On-Leash/Off-Leash Dog Provisions Currently in St. Albert if a dog is under complete control dogs are permitted off-leash in all areas in the City except for designated on-leash areas. Administration has found that St. Albert is the only known municipality that has this type of philosophy when it comes to dog control legislation. In theory this provision would appear to be sufficient however it does permit dogs to be only under control by voice command. This creates a significant challenge when it comes to enforcement as well as for a dog handler to pro-actively prevent their dog from getting out of control. To elaborate on the enforcement concerns, officers under this framework have to watch a dog and its owner for a period of time and gather evidence and an opinion that the dog is or is not under complete control. This is a subjective determination can be viewed differently amongst enforcement officers, dog handlers, non-dog owners, prosecutors and judges. Enforcement officials are unable to be clear with residents or dog owners when trying to educate them as to when a dog may be considered out of control. Another challenge with this framework is that it calls for on-leash areas to be posted. The intent is to allow Administration the flexibility to post on-leash areas on concern. One on-leash area that is posted in the City is the Red Willow trail system. Again, enforcement officers have a very difficult time with this framework because in order to enforce this provision they must prove that the area was posted as onleash with a sign. This extra step has proven to be a challenge because not all access points are posted and people can enter the trail system without passing by or seeing a sign. This raises uncertainty which stands as a good defense in court and makes it difficult for enforcement and prevention efforts. Administration asked this question on the Animal Bylaw Survey and the results show that 78% of respondents believe that an on-leash except for designated off-leash framework is best for St. Albert. There were some differences in opinions as to which areas should be considered off-leash. The most 5

10 ATTACHMENT 1 popular framework was for only certain dog parks to be off-leash, the second most popular framework was for all parks to be off-leash. Only 13% of the respondents supported the current framework. Animal Bylaw Survey Results On-leash/Off-leash provisions Which of the following on-leash / off-leash provisions do you believe is best for St. Albert? Dogs should be ON-LEASH at all times when off their property, except in designated off-leash areas (off-leash areas to include ALL parks, excluding trails) Dogs should be ON-LEASH at all times when off their property, except in designated off-leash areas (off-leash areas to only include dog parks) Dogs should be permitted OFF- LEASH in all areas as long as they are under control by voice command and on-leash in designated areas such as trails, sidewalks and tot lots (this model has enforcement challenges). Dogs should be permitted to be OFF-LEASH in all areas including sidewalks and trails as long as they are under control by voice command (this model has enforcement challenges). 23% % % 101 9% 70 Total Responses 780 As a result of the challenges and the community feedback, Administration recommends the philosophy that dogs should be on-leash at all times except for designated areas (designated areas to include all parks except for tot lots). It is recognized that this was not the most popular framework on the animal survey, however Administration believes that it strikes the right balance. Administration does not recommend that only dog parks be designated as off-leash at this time due mainly to the fact that we have not developed and implemented enough of them throughout the community. This measure would force people to the Lacombe Lake Park location at this time. As more dog parks are developed, Administration recommends reviewing the list of permitted off-leash areas and then perhaps moving towards the model that was most popular in the survey. The recommended change in philosophy ensures that all areas (including sidewalks, trails and walkways) will be considered on-leash without the need to post signage. This effectively eliminates the ongoing requirement to post and maintain on-leash signage and provides enforcement officers, the general public, and the courts clarity on the expectations and standards in the community. 6

11 ATTACHMENT 1 As well, Administration believes that by maintaining the off-leash permissions in all the parks, it helps reduce the concentration of off-leash dogs in only a few parks. This will minimize neighborhood disruption and maintain access to areas where residents can run their dog legally. This provision is recommended with the caveat that an off-leash dog must still be under complete control of the dog handler as it currently is required under the Bylaw. Cat Licensing Current Regulations Currently St. Albert does not have any cat regulations. That means that the City does not prohibit cats from roaming in the public or on private property and cat owners are not required to get a license. Anecdotally, Administration does not believe St. Albert has a feral cat problem. However, it is recognized that many residents do have concerns with roaming neighborhood cats. Even though the City does not prohibit cats from roaming or require licenses, private property owners do have some options on dealing with nuisance cats. Administration currently educates homeowners on humane methods for deterring a nuisance cat. These methods include speaking with the cat s owner (if known), placing a motion-censored water sprayer on the property, erecting a physical barrier or using safe chemical deterrents that can be purchased at pet stores. As well, property owners currently have the ability to humanely trap cats that enter their private property, however they are only able to either return the cat to the home owner (if known), take it to the edge of their property and release it, or surrender it to a humane society. Other Municipalities Cat Bylaws City of Strathcona City of Medicine City of Edmonton Red Deer City of Leduc Calgary County Lethbridge Hat Airdrie Population 1,065, ,367 89,891 88,444 83,517 60,426 45,711 24,279 Cat Bylaw X X X Prohibited to be loose on City Property X X X X X Prohibited to be loose on Private Property X X X License Required X X X X License Fee $15/yr Fixed $30/yr Intact $19/yr Fixed $74/yr Intact X X X $15/yr Fixed $50/yr Intact X $50/lifetime Fixed $100/lifetime Intact Fine for offences $50-$750 $100-$250 $30-60 X X $30-$250 X $50-$100 7

12 ATTACHMENT 1 As the above table depicts, Cat Bylaws, licensing and services vary among municipalities in Alberta. Community Feedback A number of questions relating to cat issues were recently asked in the Animal Bylaw Survey. The results show that the majority of respondents would support cat regulations if it could be done without an increase in general taxes. If the new service were to have a negative impact on taxes and was not 100% self sufficient, the respondents showed a 50/50 split for and against. Animal Bylaw Survey Results Cat Regulations Would you support a bylaw that requires all CATS to be licensed, even if it meant an increase in City spending to do so? Yes 53% 402 No 47% 359 Total Responses 761 Would you support a bylaw that requires all CATS to be licensed, if it was done without an increase in City spending to do so? Yes 71% 544 No 29% 217 Total Responses 761 Would you support a bylaw that would prohibit CATS from roaming on PRIVATE PROPERTY when not permitted by the property owner, even if it meant an increase in City spending to do so? Chart Percentage Count Response Yes 53% 401 No 47% 360 Total Responses 761 Would you support a bylaw that would prohibit CATS from roaming on PRIVATE PROPERTY when not permitted by the property owner, if it was done without an increase in City spending? Yes 71% 536 No 29% 220 Total Responses 756 8

13 ATTACHMENT 1 Would you support a bylaw that would prohibit CATS from roaming on PUBLIC PROPERTY, even if it meant an increase in City spending to do so? Yes 48% 360 No 52% 386 Total Responses 746 Would you support a bylaw that would prohibit CATS from roaming on PUBLIC PROPERTY, if it was done without an increase in City spending? Yes 67% 505 No 33% 251 Total Responses 756 Financial and Operational Considerations There are a number of factors that need to be considered when contemplating the implementation of a Cat Bylaw. This financial impact will vary depending on the type of bylaw and service expectations that are considered. There are two main service options available as it relates to cat regulations. Option 1 Implementation of legislation that only prohibits cats from entering on private property when unauthorized. This type of legislation will allow for cats to roam the city but will prohibit them to enter private property if the property owner does not consent them to be there. This type of legislation has a service expectation that the municipality deals with unwanted cats on private property only and will not respond to cats that are loose on City property. Based on other municipalities statistics we can estimate that we would receive approximately 500 complaints or service requests regarding cats. It is estimated that this option would require an additional MES Officer to handle the increased service demands. Option 2 Implementation of legislation that prohibits cats from running loose on private as well as public property. This means that cats will not be permitted to run loose or at large, cats will have to always be under control similar to dogs. This type of legislation has an expectation that the municipality will respond to complaints of cats not being under control on City property or on private property. It is estimated that because this option includes City property, there would be an increase of required resources as well. It is estimated that this option would require and additional 1.5 MES Officers to handle the increased service demands. 9

14 ATTACHMENT 1 Licensing It is recommended that if one of the above options are chosen that licensing be required for cats. This will assist with covering some of the increased costs associated with enforcement as well as providing the foundation of a good animal control program and increase the success of returning cats to their owners. By setting the fee structure for cat licensing to include a significant discount for spayed/neutered cats, this will encourage many cat owners will be encouraged to fix their pet. This will ultimately reduce the amount of unwanted breeding among the animals and will help in reducing the number of strays. With the requirement of cat licensing the City would have to implement some new software or adjust the current dog license software. With a licensing program there will be a need to increase support staff in order to handle the added administration of the program This includes things such as license renewals, changes in information, new accounts and payments. It is recommended that if the licensing of cats were to be legislated that we increase support staff by adding.5 FTE. Based on other municipalities statistics it is estimated that 2% of our population will license cats. Other municipalities with Cat Bylaws have set license fees on average around $20/year. It is important to set the license fee at a reasonable rate in order to encourage voluntary compliance. If the rate is too high the City will have to increase enforcement resources in order to ensure compliance. At this rate license revenue alone will not offset the expenses for this new service. Fines & Other Fees The fines may include charges such as, having a cat loose, not having a license, etc. Revenue generated from fines is difficult to predict however we do know that some charges will be laid and some revenue will be received. This will solely depend on how many cats are actually impounded and how many cats would be claimed or traceable back to an owner. The fees may include things such as kennel fees charged per day, which would be set at a level to cover the costs the City will be charged by private kennel service providers or some expenses related to running a facility. This again will solely depend on how many cats are actually impounded and how many cats would be claimed by an owner. Kennel Facility/Operations Based on other municipalities data, St. Albert can estimate that we will impound approximately 275 cats per year. This would put added strain on our current kennel provider and early conversations with them indicate that they do not have capacity to handle this many cat intakes at this time. Administration would have to engage other potential kennel service providers to see if any would have the capacity to handle the potential volume. There may be possible options with the Edmonton Humane Society or City of Edmonton being that their facilities are very close to the St. Albert boundaries and they are fairly new. However, if there were no viable options found, the City would have to operate its own kennel facility to meet this need. This would require significant work and a healthy capital investment for land, a building, renovations, ongoing maintenance costs as well as staff to operate the facility. Equipment There would be a need to invest in new specialized equipment. This includes items such as cat traps as well as a new animal control vehicle. Costs related to maintenance and life cycle replacement would also need to be considered. 10

15 ATTACHMENT 1 Public Education Council would need to consider the type and amount of public education around this new service. Costs would vary depending on this direction. Administration would recommend that there would need to be significant resources dedicated to this in order to properly educate cat owners. There would be an impact on Corporate Communications and Marketing workload and there may be a need to look to outside resources to assist with this campaign. Potential Implementation Timeline Given all the factors and considerations including the purchase of equipment, the hiring of employees, creating public education material as well as the securing of a kennel facility, it is estimated that the earliest that Administration could implement such a program would be This is a best case scenario estimate. This estimate also takes into consideration that the Municipal Enforcement area would be required to adjust some of their work priorities for Estimated Expenses and Revenue Note these are estimates only; detailed program costing has not taken place. It must also be noted that this does not take into account the increases in workload in the complaint taking/dispatch center or front counter at the RCMP and City Hall as it relates to the claiming of cats or purchasing of licenses Revenue: Fine Revenue License Fees (1250 $20) Kennel Fees (150 $38) $0 $0 $0 $ $ $5 700 $ $ $5 700 Expense: 1 FTE - MES Officer.5 FTE Admin support Vehicle and Equipment Public Education Campaign Kennel Services Contract Net Budget Requirement $ $ $ $ $0 $ $ $ $ $5 700 $ $ $ $ $ $ Final recommendation on Cat Regulations Administration does not recommend any new cat control or licensing provisions at this time. This is due to the mixed feedback from the public as well as the financial and operational impacts. Administration proposes that it continues to educate cat and property owners on how they can prevent and deal with nuisance cats. Other Animals As part of this review, Administration also took a look at the other aspects of animal control as it related to permitting pigs, goats, and chickens. Currently the Animal Bylaw does not address any aspects of the keeping of these animals; however the keeping of chickens, goats, pigs is not permitted in areas zoned as residential under the current regulations of the City Land Use Bylaw 9/2005 (LUB). These Animals fall under the Land Use Bylaw definition of livestock and under Section 6.14 of the LUB, developments involving livestock are prohibited except as part of an agricultural use. Agricultural uses are only allowed on larger sites within Urban Reserve Districts and not within any residential areas. 11

16 ATTACHMENT 1 The definition of livestock in the Land Use Bylaw includes horses, cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, llamas, ostriches, bison, chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, pigeons, foxes, mink, rabbits, skunks, and all other animals, poultry, fowl, and birds whether of a domestic nature or wild, but does not include dogs, cats or other domesticated household pets ordinarily kept within the confines of a dwelling house. Animal Bylaw Survey Results Other Animals Would you support a bylaw that would allow residents to keep pot belly type pigs as pets in residential areas? Yes 44% 344 No 56% 431 Total Responses 775 Would you support a bylaw that would allow residents to keep goats as pets in residential areas? Yes 26% 206 No 74% 573 Total Responses 779 Would you support a bylaw that would allow a resident to keep up to 5 chickens (no roosters, hens only) on a single family dwelling? Yes 35% 271 No 65% 507 Total Responses

17 ATTACHMENT 1 Other Municipalities Other Animals City of City of City of Sherwood City of Medicine City of City of Leduc Edmonton Calgary Red Deer Park Lethbridge Hat Airdrie Population 1,159,000 1,096,000 90,000 64, ,000 72,000 45,000 24,000 Permits Pot Belly Pigs in residential area X X X X X X X X Permits Goats in residential areas X X X X X X X X Permits Chickens in residential Permits Homing Pigeons in residential areas X X X X X X X X X X X X Permitting these types of animals would have Land Use Bylaw implications as it relates to structures such as pens or coops to contain the animals. Administration found that there was limited support for permitting these types of animals in residential areas and few municipalities permit it at this time. As a result there is no recommendation to change the current prohibition. However, Administration has found that there has been some confusion on this matter with residents as a result of these provisions being prohibited in the Land Use Bylaw but not prohibited in the Animal Bylaw. As a result Administration recommends that some provisions be added in the Animal Bylaw that specifically prohibits the harboring of these animals. This will serve to help educate the public on the current prohibition. 13

18 ATTACHMENT 2 Animal Bylaw Survey Report and Summary (Completion rate: 93.63%) As a result of Council s direction to review this Bylaw, Administration developed this animal bylaw survey to allow the community to express their view on animal control matters. The survey was broken down into a number of categories that included a general information section, a dog and cat control section, other animal control section and a licensing section. There were approximately 800 responses to the survey and over 300 general comments made about various animal control matters. It must be noted and taken into consideration that the survey was developed in house and is not statistically sound. It was developed with the parameter of one response per household (or IP address). Administration has reviewed the survey data for duplicate IP addresses and responses and as a result does not believe there was any manipulation of the survey that impacted the results. Administration believes that the surveys results are valuable and offer some insight into public opinion however Administration can not make or claim that the results are scientific or that the results are representative of the community as a whole. The survey ran from May 14 th, 2012 to July 2, Advertisements looking for resident input were done through City Lights ads, the posting of notices in pet industry stores as well as notification to registered dog license owners who have provided addresses. General Respondent Information Gender Male 35% 269 Female 65% 493 Total Responses 762 Age % % % % 270 Total Responses 759

19 ATTACHMENT 2 Marital Status Single 9% 71 Married/Common law 81% 614 Widowed 4% 28 Divorced 4% 31 Separated 1% 10 Total Responses 754 Presence of Children Children are in my household 43% 328 Children are not in my household 57% 434 Total Responses 762 Neighbourhood Akinsdale 8% 60 Braeside 3% 25 Deer Ridge 9% 72 Downtown 0% 1 Erin Ridge 7% 54 Forest Lawn 6% 47 Grandin 12% 91 Heritage Lakes 4% 33 Inglewood 1% 7 Kingswood 3% 26 Lacombe Park 17% 133 Mission 3% 24 North Ridge 5% 38

20 ATTACHMENT 2 Oakmont 5% 36 Pineview 4% 31 Sturgeon 4% 32 Woodlands 6% 47 Other rural area 1% 10 Total Responses 767 General Information Which of the following pets do you have? Dog 49% 402 Cat 25% 205 Pig 0% 2 Chicken/Rooster 0% 3 Other 9% 70 I don't have a pet 35% 282 Total Responses 815 How familiar would you say you are about the legislation dealing with pets in your community? Very familiar 20% 166 Moderately familiar 49% 396 Vaguely familiar 25% 208 Not familiar at all 6% 46 Total Responses 816

21 ATTACHMENT 2 Questions Related to Dogs In the last year, have you ever had your lifestyle disrupted by a DOG in the community doing any of the following Once a week or more - in the last year Once a month - in the last year Once every couple of months - in the last year Once - in the last year I have not been disrupted by this in the last year Total Responses Leaving feces on your property Leaving feces on public property Making excessive noise Running free/at large (ie: running in/near traffic or a bike trail) Digging up your garden 76 (10%) 116 (15%) 176 (23%) 114 (15%) 278 (37%) (44%) 123 (16%) 138 (18%) 40 (5%) 123 (16%) (31%) 88 (12%) 113 (15%) 81 (11%) 248 (33%) (20%) 80 (10%) 124 (16%) 106 (14%) 306 (40%) (2%) 8 (1%) 15 (2%) 28 (4%) 690 (91%) 756 Playing in your yard 28 (4%) 28 (4%) 49 (6%) 70 (9%) 580 (77%) 755 Damaging your property Causing excessive smell (ie: excessive feces in yard) 25 (3%) 15 (2%) 20 (3%) 42 (6%) 650 (86%) (5%) 20 (3%) 40 (5%) 42 (6%) 617 (82%) 753 In the last year, in a public place in St Albert; Yes No Total Responses Did a dog bite you? 20 (3%) 749 (97%) 769 Did a dog bite your dog? 50 (7%) 711 (93%) 761 Did a dog make you fear for yourself or a family member? 225 (29%) 548 (71%) 773 Did a dog make you fear for your dog? 117 (15%) 638 (85%) 755

22 ATTACHMENT 2 Which of the following best describes the extent to which you are personally concerned about DISRUPTIVE/NUISANCE dogs in St Albert? Very concerned 22% 168 Moderately concerned 22% 170 Mildly concerned 28% 217 Not at all concerned 29% 222 Total Responses 777 Which of the following best describes the extent to which you are personally concerned about DANGEROUS dogs in St Albert? Very concerned 23% 178 Moderately concerned 18% 142 Mildly concerned 28% 215 Not at all concerned 31% 240 Total Responses 775 Which of the following on-leash / off-leash provisions do you believe is best for St. Albert? Dogs should be ON-LEASH at all times when off their property, except in designated off-leash areas (off-leash areas to include ALL parks, excluding trails) Dogs should be ON-LEASH at all times when off their property, except in designated off-leash areas (off-leash areas to only include dog parks) Dogs should be permitted OFF- LEASH in all areas as long as they are under control by voice command and on-leash in designated areas such as trails, sidewalks and tot lots (this model 23% % % 101

23 ATTACHMENT 2 has enforcement challenges). Dogs should be permitted to be OFF-LEASH in all areas including sidewalks and trails as long as they are under control by voice command (this model has enforcement challenges). 9% 70 Total Responses 780 Do you support making it mandatory for dog owners to carry a bag or other means of picking up their dog's feces when on a walk? Yes 94% 734 No 6% 45 Total Responses 779 If a dog is believed to pose a threat to the public, do you believe that the animal control bylaw should enable officers to put extra conditions on dog owners to prevent future occurrences? (For example requiring a dog owner to muzzle a dog when on a walk) Yes 91% 705 No 9% 74 Total Responses 779 Which of the following things do you think the City should do in order to reduce the impact of disruptive and/or dangerous DOGS in the community? Increase animal control regulations 16% 129 Increase the enforcement of the regulations, even if it meant increasing City spending to do so Increase education/awareness campaigns, even if it meant increasing City spending to do so. 33% % 139 Do nothing more or less, status quo 20% 157

24 ATTACHMENT 2 is acceptable Other, please specify... 13% 103 Total Responses 783 (Other, please specify...) Comment Category Number of Comments Increase enforcement and regulations 33 Increase awareness/education through newspaper or education programs/campaigns or signs/posters. Introduce new laws or legislation focusing on breed/dog incident legislations and making owners more accountable Increase fines and penalties 8 Increase officer patrols in parks, off-leash parks, trails and public areas 6 Provide fenced off-leash parks 5 Have restricted enforcement rules/ bylaws for dangerous breeds 3 Questions that did not answer questions specifically or were off topic 3 Reduce all rules 2 More City spending should be done to improve regulations and enforcement 2 Increase number of dog parks 2 Limit number of dogs per household 1 Bylaw signage in all dog park entrances as well as all other parks 1 Increase waste disposal facilities at parks for dog feces disposal. 1 Increase enforcement with clearer and consistent penalties/actions among officers. 1 Dog leashes should be set a specific length 1 Provide programs for owners of dangerous dogs 1 Public should be more tolerant of barking dogs during daytime hours 1 Animal elimination tactics-devices (guns etc) 1

25 ATTACHMENT 2 Questions Related to Cats In the last year, have you ever had your lifestyle disrupted by a CAT in the community doing any of the following Once a week or more - in the last year Once a month - in the last year Once every couple of months - in the last year Once - in the last year I have not been disrupted by this in the last year Total Responses Leaving Feces on your property Leaving feces on public property Making excessive noise 254 (33%) 79 (10%) 73 (10%) 51 (7%) 302 (40%) (18%) 56 (8%) 59 (8%) 28 (4%) 460 (62%) (4%) 45 (6%) 76 (10%) 74 (10%) 509 (69%) 737 Running free/at large 368 (49%) 56 (7%) 46 (6%) 34 (4%) 254 (34%) 758 Digging in your garden 255 (34%) 77 (10%) 55 (7%) 26 (3%) 338 (45%) 751 Playing in your yard 247 (33%) 68 (9%) 73 (10%) 27 (4%) 328 (44%) 743 Damaging your property Causing excessive smell (ie: such as spraying) 153 (21%) 47 (6%) 33 (4%) 20 (3%) 485 (66%) (20%) 50 (7%) 54 (7%) 39 (5%) 451 (61%) 742 Killing birds 97 (13%) 57 (8%) 75 (10%) 81 (11%) 434 (58%) 744 Would you support a bylaw that requires all CATS to be licensed, even if it meant an increase in City spending to do so? Yes 53% 402 No 47% 359 Total Responses 761

26 ATTACHMENT 2 Would you support a bylaw that requires all CATS to be licensed, if it was done without an increase in City spending to do so? Yes 71% 544 No 29% 217 Total Responses 761 Would you support a bylaw that would prohibit CATS from roaming on PRIVATE PROPERTY when not permitted by the property owner, even if it meant an increase in City spending to do so? Yes 53% 401 No 47% 360 Total Responses 761 Would you support a bylaw that would prohibit CATS from roaming on PRIVATE PROPERTY when not permitted by the property owner, if it was done without an increase in City spending? Yes 71% 536 No 29% 220 Total Responses 756 Would you support a bylaw that would prohibit CATS from roaming on PUBLIC PROPERTY, even if it meant an increase in City spending to do so? Yes 48% 360 No 52% 386 Total Responses 746

27 ATTACHMENT 2 Would you support a bylaw that would prohibit CATS from roaming on PUBLIC PROPERTY, if it was done without an increase in City spending? Yes 67% 505 No 33% 251 Total Responses 756 If a Cat Bylaw was enacted, what do you believe is an appropriate number of cats (over the age of 6 months) that should be permitted in one household? 1 12% % % % 98 5 or more 7% 55 Total Responses 770 Other Questions Would you support a bylaw that would allow residents to keep pot belly type pigs as pets in residential areas? Yes 44% 344 No 56% 431 Total Responses 775 Would you support a bylaw that would allow residents to keep goats as pets in residential areas? Yes 26% 206 No 74% 573 Total Responses 779

28 ATTACHMENT 2 Would you support a bylaw that would allow a resident to keep up to 5 chickens (no roosters, hens only) on a single family dwelling? Yes 35% 271 No 65% 507 Total Responses 778 The current dog license fee includes a $10 surcharge that is held in a reserve to fund the development of dog parks and dog related amenities. Do you support an ongoing dog license surcharge for this purpose? Yes 82% 633 No 18% 137 Total Responses 770 Following up and collecting overdue dog licenses costs the City approximately $20,000 a year. Knowing this, do you support a pet license structure that would in essence add a late penalty fee if a license was not paid on time? Yes 86% 660 No 14% 110 Total Responses 770 Which one of the following statements best reflects your philosophy of funding an animal control program? The costs associated to having an animal control program should be 100% funded by pet license fees as they are the ones that choose to have pets Animal control is a community problem and the community as a whole should share animal control expenses equally (expenses 37% 286 6% 45

29 ATTACHMENT 2 covered solely by property taxes and no pet license fees) Pets are beneficial to have in a family and a healthy family means a healthy community. Not all problems are with pet owners, sometimes the non pet owners need education as well. Pet licenses should cover most of the expenses but Property taxes should cover some as well. 53% 408 Other, please specify... 4% 30 Total Responses 769 (Other, please specify...) Comment Category Animal control programs, or animal costs should only be covered by pet owners of both cats and dogs. Animal control programs or animal control programs should be covered by all residents. Comment 10 5 Eliminate dog licensing fees. The City should be funding the cost 4 Make dog licensing more affordable 2 Stricter enforcement of current bylaws 2 Increase waste disposal facilities at parks for dogs feces disposal 1 Education for both dog owners and non-dog owners 1 Make stricter bylaws concerning humane care practices of dogs (ie: keeping them outdoors in winter) More education programs for pet owners concerning feces collection/disposal etc. Bylaws banning irresponsible pet owners 1 Do not bring in a cat bylaw 1 Comments off topic-not pertaining to question 1 1 1

30 ATTACHMENT 2 Please feel free to add any other additional comments or concerns that you have as it relates to animal control matters in St Albert. Comment Category Introduce a Cat Bylaw; cats should be leashed outdoor, belled or and not permitted outdoors More responsibility needed from pet owners, concerning the actions of their pets More action from Bylaw Officers to enforce the bylaws that already exist (eg; limiting number of dogs per household, more patrols, acting on complaints) Stricter bylaws concerning the collection of dog feces and carrying dog bags. Comment More fully fenced dog parks and off leash areas 22 Stricter dog leash enforcement practices not just warnings. 20 Create regulation/bylaws for ownership of other animals (chickens, bees etc) 18 Cat Bylaws should NOT be implemented 13 Better education programs for the public about pet ownership and the Bylaws (signs, programs) Create Bylaws preventing the ownership of chickens or pigs and the slaughtering of animals for human consumption Restrictive Bylaws should only be implemented or enforced for problem pet owners No need for new and stricter bylaws 10 Provide residents animal traps free of charge to trap problem animals Restrictions of dangerous breeds (eg; Pit Bulls- should NOT be permitted in City limits or muzzled). More off leash walking trails and LARGER off leash parks are needed Increase fines or licenses for unsprayed/neutered animals. More support from City to help Bylaw Officers enforce existing bylaws. Bylaws enforcing the removal of pets after three complaints

31 ATTACHMENT 3 Animal Statistics Below are a number of miscellaneous statistics that relates to Animal Control and Licensing matters. St. Albert Dog Licenses by Year Dog Licenses by Area May 2012

32 St Albert Dog Investigations/Incidents by Type and by Year ATTACHMENT 3

33 ATTACHMENT At Large Excessive Barking Defecation No License Other Total June ytd St. Albert Reported Dog Bites by Year Dog Bite Animal Dog Bite Human June ytd Reported Dog Bites per population 2011

34 ATTACHMENT Medicine Hat Leduc n/a Sherwood Park St Albert Edmonton Grande Prairie 2.6 Airdrie 2.2 Lethbridge Licensed Dogs Per 100 Population Top Ten Licensed Dog Breeds in St Albert 1. Shih Tzu or Cross 2. Labrador Retriever or Cross

35 ATTACHMENT 3 3. Bichon Frise or Cross 4. German Shepherd or Cross 5. Cocker Spaniel or Cross 6. Border Collie or Cross 7. Yorkshire Terrier or Cross 8. Golden Retriever or Cross 9. Maltese or Cross 10. Chihuahua or Cross 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey Animal Control Services

36 ATTACHMENT 3

37 ATTACHMENT 4 CITY OF ST. ALBERT CONSOLIDATION OF ANIMAL BYLAW NO. 38/78 Consolidated by Bylaw 40/2011 Being a bylaw to provide for the licensing, regulating and for the confinement of dogs and other animals. WHEREAS the Council of the City of St. Albert deems it necessary to regulate the running at large of dogs, to provide for the licensing of dogs, and to provide for the confinement of certain dogs and other animals within the City; NOW THEREFORE the Municipal Council of the City of St. Albert in open meeting assembled, hereby ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: DEFINITIONS 1. This Bylaw may be cited as "The Animal Bylaw". 2. In this Bylaw: (a) (b) (c) "Manager" means the City Manager; "Bylaw Enforcement Officer" means the person or persons appointed as such from time to time by the Manager to do any act or perform any duties under this Bylaw; (BL4/86) at large means the circumstance where a dog is not under the complete control of a dog handler, and (i) is upon property over which the dog s handler does not have the right of occupation; or (ii) is upon any highway, thoroughfare, street, road, avenue, parkway, lane, alley, square, bridge, causeway, trestleway, sidewalk (including the boulevard portion of the sidewalk), park or any other place upon which the public is ordinarily entitled or permitted to access. (BL39/98) (d) (e) (f) (f.1) (g) "dog" means any bitch, spayed bitch, male or neutered male; "kennel" means any person, group of persons or corporation engaged in the commercial business of breeding, buying, selling or boarding dogs; dog owner means a person who owns a dog or who has possession and charge over a dog or who permits a dog to be housed on property that the person owns or occupies. (BL39/98) dog handler means a person who is responsible for a dog. (BL39/98) "City" means the City of St. Albert;

38 ATTACHMENT 4 (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) "City Animal Shelter" means the premises designated by the City for the purpose of impounding and caring for all animals found running at large in violation of this Bylaw. leash means a device that attaches to a dog for the purpose of controlling or restraining a dog. (BL39/98) on leash area means an area of the City that has been posted by the City under Section (BL39/98) playground means the sand area surrounding playground equipment. (BL39/98) trail means the Red Willow Park Trail system and the improved surface used for travel and the area one metre on either side of the improved surface. (BL39/98) LICENSE 3. No person shall own, keep or harbor any dog within the City limits unless such dog is licensed as herein provided. 4. DELETED (BL1/82) 5. Every person who is within the limits of the City and being the owner of a dog over the age of six (6) months shall, between the first and thirty-first day of January in each year, obtain a license for the current year commencing on the first day of January, by applying at the City Hall or at the City Animal Shelter or from an agent approved by the Council of the City. 6. Every person who becomes the owner of a dog over the age of six (6) months or takes up residence within the City and who is the owner of a dog which is over the age of six (6) months and which is not currently licensed in accordance with this Bylaw, shall register the same and pay the license fee herein provided, within fifteen (15) days after becoming owner of the said dog or being the owner of the said dog and taking up residence within the City. 7. Dog owners shall provide the City with the following information with each application for a dog license: (a) (b) (c) name and street address of the owner; name and description of the dog to be licensed; such other information as may be required with respect to the application. 8. Every person who becomes the owner of a dog which is currently licensed in accordance with the provisions of this Bylaw shall provide the City with his name, street address and the license number of the dog within fifteen (15) days after becoming owner of the said dog.

39 ATTACHMENT 4 9. Licenses issued under this Bylaw shall not be transferable from one dog to another. 10. Upon payment of the required license fee the owner will be supplied with a metal license tag stamped with a number and the year of license. 11. Every owner shall ensure that the license tag is securely fastened to a choke chain, collar, or harness which must be worn by the dog at all times the dog is off the premises of the owner. 12. The owner of a dog which has been duly licensed under this Bylaw may obtain a license tag to replace a tag which has been lost, upon payment of the fee specified in Schedule A to Bylaw 38/78 (BL18/2010) 13. The provisions of Sections 3 to 12 shall not apply to persons temporarily in the City for a period not exceeding two weeks. RESPONSIBILITIES OF OWNER 14. Deleted and replaced by 14.1 to 14.5 (BL39/98) 14.1 No dog shall be at large A dog owner is responsible for ensuring that the owner s dog is not at large The City may post signs designating areas as on leash areas, including areas intended to be used for play by children such as tot lots and school grounds, and park trails In an on leash area, a dog must be kept on a leash and under the complete control of a dog handler In a non-leash area, a dog must be kept under complete control of a dog handler. 15. Any person shall be entitled to take charge of any animal found running at large and deliver same to the Bylaw Enforcement Officer, who shall impound the animal. (BL4/86) 16. It shall be the duty of the occupant of any house or premises in or about which a bitch is kept or allowed to remain, to keep such bitch housed and confined during the whole period such bitch is in heat. 17. If a dog defecates on any public or private property other than the property of its owner, the owner shall cause such defecation to be removed immediately If a dog defecates on the property of its owner, the owner shall cause such defecation to be removed within a reasonable time. (BL39/98) 18. No owner shall permit his dog to bark or howl excessively or in any other manner disturb the quiet of any person.

40 ATTACHMENT (a) No owner shall permit his dog to damage public or private property; (b) When public or private property is damaged by a dog, its owner shall be deemed to have failed or refused to have complied with the requirements of Subsection (a). 20. (a) No owner shall permit his dog on any playground or posted parkland area; (BL39/98) (b) (c) The City of St. Albert shall post signs to indicate the parkland areas where dogs are not permitted; Where a dog is found on a playground or posted parkland area the owner shall be deemed to have failed or refused to comply with the provisions of Subsection (a). (BL39/98) IMPOUNDMENT 21. The Bylaw Enforcement Officer or any member of the R.C.M.P., St. Albert Detachment, is authorized to capture all dogs found in contravention of this Bylaw and to impound the said dog in the City Animal Shelter. (a) The dog so impounded shall be kept in the Animal Shelter for a period of at least forty-eight (48) hours. Sundays and statutory holidays shall not be included in the computation of the forty-eight (48) hour period. During this period any healthy dog may be redeemed by its owner or agent of the owner, upon payment to the City of St. Albert of: (i) (ii) the appropriate penalty specified in Schedule A to Bylaw 38/78, where applicable, (BL18/2010) the appropriate license fee when a dog is not licensed, and (BL4/86) (iii) kennel fees as specified in Schedule A to Bylaw 38/78 for every twenty-four (24) hour period or fraction thereof, that the dog has been impounded, including weekends and statutory holidays; (BL18/2010) (b) (c) At the expiration of the forty-eight (48) hour period any unlicensed dog not redeemed may be destroyed, or may be sold to a person other than the owner, provided that such person shall be responsible for any or all of the payments listed in Subsection (a); The owner of a dog which has been impounded and which carries a current license tag, shall be notified where possible of the impoundment;

41 ATTACHMENT 4 Such licensed impounded dog may be redeemed in accordance with Subsection (a) above except that the period of impoundment shall be seventy-two (72) hours. PENALTIES 22. (a) The Bylaw Enforcement Officer may issue an offence ticket to an owner alleged to have committed one or more of the following offences. The offence ticket shall state the alleged offence and require payment of the appropriate fine specified in Schedule A to Bylaw 38/78; (BL18/2010) Offence Fines DELETED (BL4/86) i) failure to obtain a dog license ii) iii) iv) failure to ensure that a collar and tag are worn when a dog is off the premises of the owner permitting a dog to be at large or failing to confine and house a female dog in heat, or permitting a dog to bark or howl excessively, or permitting a dog on posted parkland, or failure to immediately remove a dog s defecation from public or private property other than the property of the dog s owner, or permitting a dog to damage public or private property (BL39/98) interference with enforcement of By-law (any offence listed in Section 22). (BL39/98) (b) The offence ticket shall be sufficiently served by: (i) (ii) double registered letter addressed to the owner or harborer of the dog concerned, handing the notice to the owner or harborer of the dog concerned or to any adult at the place of residence of the said owner or harborer; (c) Except as provided in Section 22 (b) above, the provisions of Bylaw No. 21/76, a bylaw to provide for the imposition of penalties for infractions of City Bylaws, as amended, insofar as those provisions relate to the issuing of offence tickets as an alternative and in lieu or secure of a summons, shall apply to the issuing of offence tickets under this Bylaw A dog owner commits an offense if that dog owner s dog is (i) (ii) at large, or not on a leash and under the complete control of a dog handler in an on leash area. (BL39/98)

42 ATTACHMENT A person commits an offense if that person is a dog handler and (i) allows a dog to be at large, and (ii) fails to have the dog on a leash and under complete control in an on leash area. (BL39/98) 22.3 A prosecution or conviction of either the dog owner or the dog handler, where they are different persons, is not a bar to the prosecution or conviction of the other. (BL39/98) VICIOUS DOG 23. (a) The owner shall confine within a building or secure enclosure, every fierce, dangerous, or vicious dog and not take such dog out of such building or secure enclosure unless such dog is securely muzzled; (b) (c) Any animal which bites a person shall be promptly reported to the Bylaw Enforcement Officer and may thereupon be quarantined at the direction of the Bylaw Enforcement Officer and shall not be released from such quarantine except by written permission of the Medical Officer of Health for the City. At the discretion of the Bylaw Enforcement Officer such quarantine may be on the premises of the owner or at the City Animal Shelter. In the case of stray animals whose ownership is not known, such quarantine shall be at the City Animal Shelter; (BL4/86) Upon demand made by the Bylaw Enforcement Officer, the owner shall forthwith surrender any animal which has bitten a human, or which is suspected of having been exposed to rabies, for supervised quarantine which expense shall be borne by the owner, and the animal may be reclaimed by the owner if adjudged free of rabies, upon payment of the pound fees and upon compliance with the licensing provisions of this Bylaw. (BL4/86) RABIES CONTROL 24. In the event of an outbreak or a threatened outbreak of rabies or any disease affecting dogs which may be transmitted to human beings, Council may by Resolution order and direct, that all animals shall be securely tied up by the owner or shall be otherwise effectively confined and prevented from running at large upon any public street, lane or other highway within the City; any dog found running at large in contravention of this Section shall be impounded. 25. When an animal under quarantine has been diagnosed as rabid, or suspected by a licensed veterinarian as being rabid, and dies while under such observation, the Bylaw Enforcement Officer shall immediately send the head of such animal to the appropriate health department for pathological examination and shall notify the Medical Officer of Health for the City, of reports and human contacts, and diagnosis made of the suspected animal. (BL4/86)

43 ATTACHMENT During such period of rabies quarantine as herein mentioned, every animal bitten by an animal adjudged to be rabid, shall be forthwith destroyed, or at the owner's expense and option shall be treated for rabies infection by a licensed veterinarian or held under quarantine by the owner in the same manner as other animals are quarantined. 27. Except as herein provided, no person shall kill, or cause to be killed, any rabid animal, any animal suspected of having been exposed to rabies or any animal which has bitten a human, nor remove the same from the City limits without written permission from the Bylaw Enforcement Officer. (BL4/86) 28. The carcass of any dead animal exposed to rabies shall upon demand be surrendered to the Bylaw Enforcement Officer. (BL4/86) 29. The Bylaw Enforcement Officer shall direct the disposition of any animal found to be infected with rabies. (BL4/86) 30. When in the judgement of a licensed veterinarian an animal should be destroyed for humane reasons, such animal may not be redeemed. OTHER MATTERS 31. No wild animals may be kept within the City limits except under such conditions as may be fixed by the City provided, however, that wild animals may be kept for exhibition purposes by circuses, zoos and educational institutions in accordance with such regulations as shall be established by the City. 32. The Bylaw Enforcement Officer is authorized to use a tranquilizer gun when deemed necessary by him to subdue any dog running at large and to take such other reasonable measures as may be necessary to subdue such dog. 33. No person shall keep or harbor more than three (3) dogs of whatever sex and aged six (6) months or more, at one and the same time in any house, shelter, room or place within the City, provided this Section shall not apply to premises lawfully used for the care and treatment of dogs operated by and in charge of a licensed veterinarian, nor to any premises which with the written permission of the Manager may be temporarily used for the purpose of a dog show, nor to any person in possession of a license to operate a kennel within the limit of the City. 34. No action shall be taken against any person acting under the authority of this Bylaw for damages for the destruction or other disposal of any animal. 35. No person shall interfere with, hinder or molest the Officer appointed to enforce the provisions of this Bylaw, in the performance of any duty. 36. No person shall interfere with, hinder or molest any person or persons engaged in taking to the City Animal Shelter any animal liable to be impounded under the provisions of this Bylaw.

44 ATTACHMENT No person shall remove or attempt to remove any dog from the possession of the Bylaw Enforcement Officer or any person authorized to enforce any of the provisions of this Bylaw. (BL4/86) 38. That Bylaw No. 25/74 is hereby repealed. 39. Any service or facility required by this Bylaw, including the provision of the City Animal Shelter, may be provided by the City, or by contract through a third party at the discretion of the Manager. (BL44/2000)

45 ATTACHMENT 4 ANIMAL BYLAW 38/78 CONSOLIDATED BY BYLAW 40/2011 (As amended November 28, 2011) SCHEDULE A GST EXEMPT 1. The owner of every dog in the City, over the age of six (6) months shall each year pay to the City a licence fee in accordance with the following schedule: 2012 (a) For each neutered male and spayed female dog (b) For each male and female dog Every person who, after September 30 of any year, becomes the owner of a dog over the age of six (6) months or takes up residence within the City and is the owner of a dog over the age of six (6) months and which is currently licensed under the Animal Bylaw 38/78, shall pay to the City a licence fee in accordance with the following schedule: (a) For each neutered male and spayed female dog (b) For each male and female dog The operator of a proven rescue foster home for dogs shall for every dog over the age of six (6) months owned by or in the custody of the operator pay to the City a licence fee in accordance with the following schedule: (a) For each neutered male and spayed female dog No charge (b) For each male and female dog No charge 1.3 The owner of a dog over the age of six (6) months, that is a proven service or guide dog or proven service or guide dog in training shall each year pay to the City a licence fee in accordance with the following schedule: (a) For each neutered male and spayed female dog No charge (b) For each male and female dog No charge 2. Kennel Fees (Daily) Fines: 1st Offence 2nd Offence (a) - failure to obtain a dog licence (b) - failure to ensure that a collar and tag are worn when a dog is off the premises of the owner (c) - permitting a dog to be at large (amended by BL39/98) (d) - failing to confine and house a female dog in heat (e) - permitting a dog to bark or howl excessively (f) - permitting a dog on posted parkland (g) - failure to immediately remove a dog's defecation from public or private property other than the property of the dog's owner (h) - permitting a dog to damage public or private property (i) - interference with enforcement of By-law No. 38/

46 Animal Bylaw Review

47 Issue Animal Bylaw has not been substantially reviewed for over 20 yrs. Council directed Administration to review the Animal Bylaw including options for cat regulations. 2

48 Review Administration Reviewed St. Albert Animal Bylaw & Other Municipal Animal Bylaws Number and types of recorded animal complaints and incidents Animal license data Animal survey results 3

49 Findings Significant Findings Many errors, omissions, redundancy in Bylaw format and terminology. No enforceable or effective provisions for dangerous or aggressive dogs. Dog on-leash / off-leash provisions opposite to all other researched Bylaws. 4

50 Findings Cat Regulations No prohibition for roaming cats or requiring licensing of cats in St. Albert Home owners can currently humanely trap cats on private property and use other deterrents without a Municipal Bylaw Cat regulations and services vary amongst Municipalities 5

51 Findings Cat Regulation Feedback Respondents were more likely (70/30) to support a cat Bylaw if it could be done without an increase in spending. Respondents were split (50/50) on this matter if it meant an increase in spending for this new service. 14% of the community is dissatisfied with Animal Control Services. Of the 14%, 24% were dissatisfied because there are no cat regulations 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey 6

52 Findings Cat Regulation Service Increase Estimated to cost $160K to $200K in the 1 st Year Ongoing operating expenses between $100K and $130K * This is assuming that a private kennel provider could be secured. If not these increases could be substantially higher being that the City would have to invest to operate its own kennel facility. 7

53 Findings Other Limited support for permitting pigs, goats, chickens in residential areas. Dog waste not being picked up is an ongoing concern for residents. Overdue Dog license enforcement continues to be a challenge 8

54 Findings Other Notable Findings 86% of residents are either satisfied or neutral with current Animal Control Services Provided 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey 14% of the community is dissatisfied with Animal Control Services. Of the 14%, 65% were dissatisfied because of a lack of enforcement of some type 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey #1 respondent recommendation for handling disruptive or dangerous dogs - increase enforcement even if it meant an increase in spending to do so Animal Bylaw Survey 9