City talks new dog ordinance with emphasis on spaying, neutering
VAN BUREN — The city is crafting a response to long-standing concerns it’s seen and heard about dogs in its jurisdiction, including an incentive for people to spay or neuter their pets.
The City Council unanimously approved the first reading of a proposed ordinance to repeal and replace the city’s ordinance regulating dogs in the city at its meeting Monday. Council members and residents were allowed to ask questions about the new ordinance and provide feedback on how it could be improved.
Mayor Joe Hurst said the city is trying to address dog-related issues residents have made known to public officials — himself included — for years.
“I wish it would stop it altogether, just completely,” Hurst said. “Not sure we can ever get that accomplished, but I’m wanting the City Council to approve an ordinance that will do as good as it possibly can.”
Hurst said the city will make changes to the proposed dog ordinance based on Monday’s discussion for the council’s meeting Oct. 23. The council has to approve three readings of the ordinance before it can take effect, per state law. The third reading is set for November.
Wally Bailey, Van Buren’s planning director, provided the council an overview of the new 25-page dog ordinance, including the differences between it and the city’s current dog ordinance. He said this version of the ordinance incorporated comments he received since he presented the council a draft of the document Aug. 28.
One facet of the new ordinance is an incentive for residents to get their dogs spayed or neutered: a reduced fee of $5 to register the altered dogs with the city compared to $10 for their unaltered counterparts.
However, the ordinance has an exception in which a dog owner can get the $5 discount if they provide the city a letter from a veterinarian certifying it’s unsafe to spay or neuter their dog due to age, poor health or illness, Bailey said.
The new dog ordinance also clarifies city registration is required for any dog six months or older, among other things, according to Bailey.
Madison Simmons, who holds the Ward 2, Position 2 seat on the City Council, said
the community has a problem with stray dogs. She asked if the city could provide greater incentive for residents to get their dogs spayed or neutered by increasing the license fee for unaltered dogs.
“I just know it’s a really big problem, and when you have dogs that are running around that are unaltered, they are likely to get other dogs pregnant,” Simmons said.
Van Buren Animal Control takes dogs it picks up and for which it can’t find the owners to Almost Home Shelter and Rescue, which provides the dogs spay, neuter and rabies vaccination services if necessary, Bailey said. The city has an agreement with Almost Home in which the Van Buren-based nonprofit group takes care of and tries to find homes for dogs Animal Control brings in.
Laura Schultz was one of the residents who weighed in on the ordinance. She said she would like the council to revisit the ordinance’s definition of a public nuisance dog, specifically as it concerns noise.
The ordinance defines a public nuisance dog, in part, as a dog that creates noise disturbances between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. that may interfere with the “peace or sleep of a reasonable person who may reside within reasonable proximity” of where the dog is kept. It states Animal Control may impound any dog creating a public nuisance through barking, howling, crying or making other frequent noise.
Schultz argued a public nuisance dog is a public nuisance dog no matter the time of day. She said the ordinance’s current definition doesn’t take certain people — such as those who have to sleep during the day or work from home — into account and recommended the council look at the animal regulations ordinance Fort Smith city directors passed in March.
That ordinance has a section stating it’s unlawful for someone to keep any dog which, through loud and frequent barking or howling, will disturb the peace of any other person who may live or operate a business within “reasonable proximity” of where the dog is kept. This applies all day, although the basis for possibly being cited as violating the ordinance are different between the day and night periods.
Schultz also gave recommendations to more clearly define the actions to be taken in response to dogs creating a public nuisance in the new ordinance.
“I don’t want my neighbor to lose their dog,” Schultz said. “I don’t want my neighbor to have a fine, but if we don’t put some teeth into what this ordinance is, just because we write an ordinance, it’s not going to take care of the kennel that I live in in my neighborhood, and mine isn’t the only one.”
Darryl Schultz, Laura Schultz’s husband, said he believed the civil penalty the new ordinance sets for public nuisance violations — $50 plus court costs — should be at least doubled to help deal with the “serious problem with dogs” in the community. The ordinance states all civil penalties and service fees are payable to the city.