Electric City reconsiders pet limiting rules

To enforce or not to enforce was the question Tuesday night as Electric City officially entered the dog days of summer.

The city, it seems, has been sending letters to several residents about the city’s pet code, many of whom have been ignoring them, some by a wide margin of error.

The city gets complaints, has tried to persuade owners into compliance through other means, and it’s now down to writing tickets, but city employees wanted some guidance on how hard-nosed they should be about it.

City Clerk Peggy Nevsimal gave the council examples of longtime residents who have many times the permitted number of dogs and don’t bother to license them despite repeated attempts to get them to comply with the law. Licenses cost $7 a year, $12 if the animal is not neutered.

One has 20 dogs, she noted, 10 times the legal limit. Another has six.

A city ordinance passed in 2019 makes it illegal to have more than two dogs, or three cats.

“I think we could raise that limit,” Mayor Diane Kohout said, noting the city has gotten calls asking if the limit could be raised.

Nevsimal said she’d checked with eight other cities in the region and found various limits: some held it at two, some three dogs, or even no limit at all.

Councilmember Don Redfield questioned the reasoning behind any such number.

“Is there a solid equation that says, ‘this is why we need to have a limit on animals?’” He suggested safety or health issues might be addressed in other ways.

Councilmember Robbin Boyce, appointed in June to fill the unexpired term of Bob Rupe, said it’s more of a nuisance issue. “You get five dogs barking in a back yard, versus two, it makes a big difference,” he said.

Kohout noted some people not aware of city codes, such as those just moving to the city, might need to be considered in any amendment of the code, as might compassion for owners of longtime pets. Perhaps a “grandfather” clause could be included to allow those with too many pets to lessen the number through attrition as the pets die off, with no replacements allowed.

“There’s a difference between having animals that you love … and deliberately thumbing your nose at the city,” Councilmember Cheryl Hoffman observed.

Redfield cautioned that the city suddenly enforcing a code it hasn’t for a long time might be more complicated than expected.

Nevsimal said the city has been working on the problem. Software has been purchased to keep track of what the ordinance requires, and two people have been working on communication to elicit compliance, “and yet this topic has not been followed through with.”

“Because none of want pitch forks and torches in front of our houses,” Hoffman said.

“Well then we need to change our city code if we don’t care,” Nevsimal said.

Nevertheless, councilmembers advised the city administration to continue enforcement under the current ordinance, especially egregious offenders, until the code is changed.

Kohout asked for up to two council volunteers to work on that, perhaps along with a citizen or two.

“I do think we need to change it,” she said.