The city decided on Monday it will tackle two bylaws in 2012 it considers outdated, one of which could leave pet owners clawing at council.
By unanimous votes, council directed administration to review both the animal bylaw, as well as the bylaw regulating alarm systems, with the specific goal of reducing the number of false alarms.
But what could raise the hackles of pet owners is a direction in Coun. Cathy Heron's motion stating the review of the animal bylaw "shall include bringing forward options and justification for the possibility of licensing cats."
The city does not currently license cats.
"Are you pleased?" Mayor Nolan Crouse asked acting city manager Chris Jardine with a smile.
"This is a bylaw staff has said that needs review," Jardine replied simply.
"This will be a polarizing bylaw. It will take us some time."
A question Heron posted to her Facebook page on whether or not to license cats drew 30 responses last month. That same question posted on the city's page solicited a further 40 responses.
"Most people were OK with licensing, others were 50-50 on whether or not we should leash [cats]," Heron said.
The motion asks administration to return with the completed review by Sept. 24, 2012. Jardine said the review would encompass a lot of work.
"We will need to do a lot of public consultation work on this," Jardine said.
Crouse showed off an almost foot-thick stack of correspondence he described as his file on the animal bylaw going back 10 years that, besides referring to licensing issues, also contained inquiries about pit bull bylaws and other specific problems.
"Municipal Enforcement probably has some thicker folders," Jardine said. "They have ideas on what are causing citizens issues. They also have a laundry list of things that are causing them problems."
Coun. Wes Brodhead asked just how far the review would go, citing reports from other municipalities that allow individuals to keep chickens in their yards. Coun. Malcolm Parker confirmed he had received inquiries about chickens from local residents.
"If we're talking cats, are we talking about chickens in backyards?" Brodhead asked.
"I hadn't heard that one yet, but that's why we have the consultation process," Jardine replied.
False alarms
Council passed a second motion served by Heron calling for a review of the bylaw regulating alarm systems.
At only nine pages in length, Jardine said that review, which must be completed by June 18, will be more administrative in nature.
Heron said that every false alarm costs the city an hour and a half of staff time. When the bylaw was crafted a decade ago, there were much fewer alarm systems in the city. Now the city averages 1,200 false alarms per year — approximately three a day — for which the alarm companies are not responsible.
"An alarm company is trying to make money. They set it up, monitor it, but if a response is required, they're not paying for it," Heron said. "They want the RCMP to respond on their behalf."
She also noted alarm companies in St. Albert don't require permits.
"Every business does. I don't know why alarm companies don't," she said. "We just need to offset some of those costs."
Per Heron's motion, administration will also examine such initiatives as making alarm companies responsible for the cost of responding to a false alarm, using a 1-900 pay-for-service phone dispatch service, requiring alarm companies to obtain a permit in order to operate and incremental fees for subsequent false alarms.
"We must never stop responding because it helps make the community safe, at least that's the perception," Heron said. "This needs to be given priority."
