All Springfield dogs would have to be licensed with the city, proposal says

Alissa Zhu | Springfield News-Leader

All Springfield dog owners would be impacted by a new proposal that's taking shape in a City Council committee.

It would require all dogs — regardless of breed — to be registered, vaccinated and implanted with a microchip.

Owners would need to pay for a license every one or three years. The cost would be higher for "unaltered" or "intact" dogs, meaning ones that have not been spayed or neutered.

The goal, according to Springfield-Greene County Health Department officials, is to encourage people to spay or neuter their pets, reduce the likelihood of bites and rabies exposure and make it easier for dogs on the loose to be returned home.

Councilman Craig Hosmer, chair of the Plans and Policies Committee, has expressed support for the dog licensing proposal.

"In the long run, I think, it would be more cost-effective for animal control, provide greater safety for the public and be cheaper for the taxpayer," Hosmer told the News-Leader. "One of the big problems we have are with intact animals. They are the animals that get out the most or cause the most problems ... (such as) going after children and people and biting."

An initial draft of the proposal was presented to Hosmer's committee in June. Hosmer said he expects to see some modifications as the bill is discussed again at the committee level.

If the plan gets passed out of committee, then it will be presented to the entire City Council over the course of two meetings.

More: For Missouri prisoners working with broken dogs, healing goes both ways

What dog owners might expect to see

Though details may change, the following is a description of how dog licensing would work in Springfield, as outlined in a draft bill provided to a council committee.

It would be illegal for anyone to own a dog, more than 16 weeks old, unless the dog has been licensed, vaccinated and implanted with a microchip.

License tags must be worn by dogs at all times.

Licenses could be obtained from the Springfield-Greene County Health Department, and possibly through other third parties, such as licensed veterinarians, animal shelters or pet shops.

The health department could refuse to license a dog if the owner had previously failed to pay civil penalties related to dog licensing or he or she has been found to be a reckless owner under an existing restricted and vicious dog ordinance.

Licenses for one- and three-year periods would be available. It would be cheaper to purchase three-year licenses because the health department wants to encourage people to purchase three-year rabies shots, said Erica Little, environmental health administrator.

A license could be transferred to another person if the dog gets a new owner. There would be no fee for a transfer. An application would be required.

There would be a reduced fee for licensing registered show dogs, dogs that belong to people who are 65 years or older and dogs adopted from rescue organizations. It would be free to license law enforcement K-9s and service animals.

There would an incentive for owners to stay in compliance with the rules — a discounted fee for three-year renewal licenses if certain conditions are met. The dog must be spayed or neutered and have a three-year rabies vaccination. The dog must not have been found running at large or returned home by an animal control officer within the previous license period.

For every three-year renewal cycle that a dog remains compliant, the fee would drop by $5.

People traveling through the city or staying for 30 days or less would not have to have their dogs licensed.

If a dog is "medically unsuitable" for microchipping, it could be marked with an identifying tattoo number by a veterinarian instead. The veterinarian is required to provide proof of "medical unsuitability," the tattoo number and the owner's name and contact information.

Proposed license fees are as follows:

Three-year unaltered dog license: $50

One-year unaltered dog license: $75

Three-year altered dog license: $15

One-year altered dog license: $25

Dog adopted from rescue organization: $10, for the first time licensing only

Service animals: $0

K-9: $0

Registered show dog: $10, available for one-year licenses only

Senior citizen owner of unaltered dog license: $40, available for three-year licenses only

Senior citizen owner of altered dog license: $10, available for three-year licenses only

Proposed civil penalties are as follows:

First violation for unlicensed dog: $25

Subsequent violations for unlicensed dog: $75

Transfer ownership without application: $75

False information in the license application: $75

An owner can appeal a civil penalty by filing a request for a hearing to the director of health within 20 days of receiving written notice from the city.

More: Group urges 'no' vote on Springfield pit bull ban

What would a licensing program cost the city?

Rough projections from the health department show that dog licensing would cost the city nearly $469,000 the first year. Officials do not expect revenue from fees to cover the whole amount — leaving a shortfall of about $347,000.

For the following eight years, the shortfall could range between $256,000 and $279,000 annually, the health department projects.

Little said the estimated figures are "hazy" and based off several assumptions, such as that 10 percent of people will comply with licensing requirements and half of all dogs are currently neutered or spayed.

Little said the health department would need to contract with a third-party animal licensing program, which would handle billings, send out tags, review applications and report monthly to animal control.

An additional three animal control officers would also need to be hired, she said.

"We expect to have an influx of animals running loose as people see there's a requirement and they let their animals go," Little said.

Council members have asked whether fees for dog licensing would be counted as a tax on Springfield residents. If it's considered a tax, City Council would be required to put the issue on a ballot for local voters to decide.

According to City Attorney Frank Romines, it depends on how the program is written.

"Council will make a choice on whether to send it to people (for a vote) or not," Romines said during the June meeting. "There are ways you can structure a program like this so as to make it optional to have to send it to a vote of the people."

More: Before you vote, read about severe pit bull attacks

What could this mean for Springfield's pit bull owners?

Pit bull owners would need to pay a special pit bull registration fee — which has been in place for more than a decade — in addition to the proposed dog licensing fee, if it's passed.

Hosmer said down the line he hopes that required licensing for all dogs could mean that City Council could look at changing or eliminating breed-specific legislation.

"I think what we'll have to do is see what the history of the ordinance does and if it eliminates the need for pit bull registration," Hosmer said.

In October, City Council tried to ban pit bulls. Due to a successful petition effort, the decision of whether to implement a pit bull ban will be left to voters on Aug. 7.

More: Springfield voters will decide whether to ban pit bulls. A national org urges 'no'

However, if the ban is struck down during the August election, existing special restrictions on pit bulls would remain.