SPRINGFIELD — City officials are pondering how to lower the costs for animal control.
The city has a contract with the county to enforce animal control ordinances.
The city paid $23,817 to the county so far in the fourth quarter of 2014, up a considerable amount from the fourth quarter of 2013, $19,949. In 2013, the city generated 207 calls and had 98 animals sheltered. In 2014, the city had 171 calls and 133 animals sheltered.
The enforcement cost applied by Bay County was $10,627, slightly more than half of the cost. The cost per call was about $62. Hammond believes that if the volume of calls continue, the quarterly costs soon will be $30,000 to $40,000.
“It’s getting to be very expensive,” Hammond said during a City Commission meeting Monday.
Bay County General Services Director Jamie Jones said county animal control charges in part by using the percentage of total calls that went through all of the municipalities. For instance, in the fourth quarter Springfield had 8.04 percent of the total calls, with more than 50 percent of calls coming from unincorporated Bay County.
Costs are determined on a per case basis.
Hammond laid out three options for the commission:
- Charge residents per call.
- Take all the calls through city code enforcement to cut down on unnecessary trips for county animal control officers.
- Take over enforcement of animal control in the city, while still using the county shelter.
Hammond was not sure if the first option was even possible, both figuring out what would be a fair rate, a capacity to charge and who to charge in the case of repeat offenders.
“We had one individual with seven calls,” Hammond said.
Other commissioners agreed option two seemed tenable. In an instance where code enforcement received a call about a dog outside without water and then responded and saw the animal had a full water bowl, it would potentially save a call. However, option two would require retraining residents to call the right number and potentially county operators to refer Springfield calls to City Hall. Code enforcement officer Allan Quigley also has expressed on multiple occasions that he is incredibly busy just fielding code enforcement responses.
“I don’t know if they have factored in how much time is involved with some of these calls,” Jones said.
Option three would by far be the most costly, requiring at least two employees using two vehicles and warranting a higher level of workman’s compensation because of the potential for animal bites.
Jones said Panama City Beach and Mexico Beach have stopped doing their own enforcement in 2014 because of the costs.
Regardless, Hammond said he is happy with Bay County and the animal control contract, looking only to lower costs within the city.