Updated Ordinance Will Not Require Cats To Be Licensed | News

Cat owners in Little Falls will not have to license their furry feline family members, after all.

A proposed amendment to the city’s pet ordinance initially would have required cats kept within city limits to be licensed, just as dogs are under current policy. However, the City Council voted, Monday, to strike that provision within the proposed amendments prior to unanimously passing the updates.

The amendment now only changes language regarding how many dogs may be kept within a single dwelling. The current code states that two dogs are allowed “per person.” The amendment stipulates that two dogs are allowed “per dwelling.” For the purpose of the ordinance, a single unit in a multi-family housing structure, such as an apartment building or duplex, would be considered a dwelling.

“I’m in favor of striking cats from the ordinance,” said Council Member Leif Hanson, who is also on the Planning Commission. “I think it’s too cumbersome to enforce. We’re starting with zero licenses and we’re going to now license all of them. You can’t enforce it.”

City Engineer Greg Kimman said, during a July 11 public hearing with the Planning Commission, portions of the amendment were left “intentionally vague.” Those portions pertained to the number of cats that would be allowed and if cats would need to be licensed.

The resolution also passed without making reference to a certain number of cats that would be allowed per dwelling.

City Council Member Raquel Lundberg asked if anyone knew how many households in Little Falls own cats; or how many cats are kept in the city. City Administrator Jon Radermacher said there are about 4,000 utility accounts with the city, so even if only one quarter of them own a cat, that’s at least 1,000.

“How are we going to get people to come in and license their cat?” Lundberg asked. “Are we going to go door to door?”

Kimman said, if the ordinance passed as it was originally written, the city would put a note in with utility bills or a notice in the newspaper notifying residents that cats required a license.

Hanson reminded the Council that, when the ordinance was introduced Aug. 1, he asked his colleagues to look over the amendments and come ready to discuss the issues regarding cats. He reiterated that the Planning Commission left those portions vague so the Council had some flexibility.

“There was no consensus on, ‘Yes, we should have cats. No, we should not have cats. We should establish a number on cats,’” Hanson said. “It really comes down to cats. I don’t think there’s a whole lot of discussion about dogs. I think most people are in favor of that.”

Council Member Brad Hircock asked why the city has not required licensing for cats in the past.

“Why would we?” said Council Member Frank Gosiak.

“That’s what I’m wondering,” Hircock said. “Why would we have them in here now?”

City Attorney Alissa Harrington clarified that many places, in general, require dogs to be licensed because they are larger animals, they are viewed as being, potentially, more dangerous in groups and are sometimes trained to be aggressive — moreso than cats, anyway. However, she said some places have recently been requiring residents to license cats as a way to help ensure they have received a rabies vaccination.

“Officially, the City Attorney’s Office doesn’t have a position one way or the other on the cat issue,” she said. “You can take it out, you can leave it. There are certainly reasons for both.”

Radermacher said the challenge, from the city’s standpoint, would be policing cat licensure, if it were to pass. The way it would likely go, he said, is that cats would be licensed as they were adopted from or brought into the Morrison County Humane Society. That would bring more and more residents into compliance as time went on.

Lundberg asked if it would be considered a conflict of interest for a council member to vote on the ordinance if they own a cat and don’t believe licenses should be required. She also asked how it would be handled if a household already has more than two dogs.

“What the Planning Commission said was, they would be grandfathered in,” said Council Member Jerry Knafla, who is also on the Planning Commission. “But, if one of them dies, you can’t replace it.”

In terms of the conflict of interest question, Harrington said members of the council who have cats could feel free to debate and vote on the issue. However, when it came to a vote, Lundberg chose to abstain. It still passed 7-0.

“This is one of those things where, if you, yourself, own a cat or dog, or multiple cats or dogs, the interest is so general that it is not one that would create a conflict that would mean that you would not be able to vote on this,” Harrington said.

Lundberg also added that a lot of people have cats that are never allowed to go outside. Other residents, she said, allow their cats to roam freely about the neighborhood — which is already a violation of city ordinance. She said there was a big difference in the threat posed by each type of cat, when it comes to rabies vaccinations.

“Cats that don’t go outside aren’t really at risk of getting rabies unless you get a rabid bat in your house or something, I don’t know,” Lundberg said. “That’s a big difference. A lot of cats just don’t go outside, so they’re really not much of a threat to the general public.”

It was one of four ordinance amendments the city approved, after they were introduced, Aug. 1.

One other garnered some discussion among the Council, that being a change that would allow alcohol to be consumed in city parks, during park hours.

Kimman said the ordinance was strictly confined to city parks, not including city right-of-way, parking lots, or any other public space where alcohol is currently restricted.

“There was no way possible we could pick and choose parks?” asked Mayor Greg Zylka. “It has to be all or nothing?”

“We could, but the Planning Commission felt it would be challenging to do that, as well as the policing and enforcement of it just because one you could, the next one you couldn’t,” Kimman said. “I said, let’s just look at all of them.”

The resolution passed, 6-2, with Zylka and Gosiak voting against it.

Little Falls City Council Briefs:

In other business Monday, the Little Falls City Council:

• Heard from City Engineer Greg Kimman that appraisals have been completed along a potential extension of 18th Street Southeast. They gave he and his staff the go-ahead to begin contacting property owners to begin negotiating the purchase of those parcels for city right of way. Construction would begin when funding allows;

• Held a closed session to discuss the offer and/or counter offer regarding the purchase of land within one of the city’s industrial parks;

• Approved a temporary gambling permit for the Minnesota Rodeo Association, Sept. 17 - 18;

• Approved the new Mayor and City Council Handbook;

• Approved a request from Johnny C’s Sports Bar to close the alley between it and Lindy Scoop from 4 p.m. Sept. 9 through 4 p.m. Sept. 11, during the Arts and Crafts Fair;

• Heard nothing during a public hearing for the proposed vacation of an alley between Fifth Street Northwest and Sixth Street Northwest, and Third Avenue Northwest and Fourth Avenue Northwest.

The Council later voted unanimously to deny the request, as recommended by the Planning Commission, due to the fact no one who signed the petition came forward with a reason for the vacation;

• Approved a request to purchase a compressor for an air conditioner at the Little Falls Public Library at a cost of $9,200. It will be purchased from the Climate Makers Corporation of Brooklyn Center;

• Awarded a bid of $32,000 from Bolton and Menk — which is paid for with a grant — for a new interpretive signage plan;

• Approved an ordinance allowing religious organizations to build and maintain a columbarium on their property;

• Approved a resolution allowing businesses in districts zoned B-2 and in industrial parks to install solar energy panels on the roof or sides of their building;

• Accepted the resignation of Park Maintenance Worker Paul Karst and approved a request to begin working to fill the position;

• Approved a variance request for CenterPoint Energy to install a seven-foot fence at the maintenance facility the company is currently constructing;

• Denied a variance application from a resident on John L Drive for additional impervious surface on his property;

• Set a public hearing for 7:30 p.m. Sept. 19 for final 2021 sidewalk improvement assessments; and

• Decertified the tax increment financing district for Larson Motor Services Housing Redevelopment.

The next meeting of the Little Falls City Council is at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, Sept. 6, at Little Falls City Hall.

"A lot of cats just don’t go outside, so they’re really not much of a threat to the general public.” - Raquel Lundberg, Little Falls City Council member

Email notifications are only sent once a day, and only if there are new matching items.

Your comment has been submitted.

There was a problem reporting this.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything. Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person. Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts. Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Success! An email has been sent to with a link to confirm list signup.

Error! There was an error processing your request.