City staff told the City Council at its Aug. 25 work session that seven horses remain at a property whose interim use permit for horses was revoked and that no post-revocation communications have been sent to the owner. "He identified 7 horses on the property that he could count," staff said, and "There has not been any communication sent." Lacking an active IUP, staff said the animals are now in violation of city ordinance.

Why it matters: Under the city's IUP rules, revocation carries a 30-day requirement to remove animals; the council was told that more than 30 days have passed since revocation and the animals remain. Council members discussed enforcement options and the practical challenges of relocating large animals.

City staff described the usual enforcement path and the specific options available in this case. Historically, the city sent up to three letters for code violations; unresolved matters were referred to the city attorney for prosecution. Staff said the IUP process differs from routine code enforcement because revocation triggers a fixed 30-day removal period. "An IUP is clearly laid out in terms of upon revocation, you get 30 days to clean up the property," staff said.

Council discussion and direction focused on next steps rather than immediate court action. Council members asked staff to open communication with the owner, request a plan of action, and return to the council if the owner does not respond. One council member proposed a two-week deadline after a written notice: "Once a letter is issued, within 2 weeks have a plan of action." Staff said it could email the owner first and then follow up with a certified letter so the owner receives formal notice.

Council members emphasized logistics and timing, noting winter approaching would make rehoming horses harder and that reapplying for an IUP would not be a quick remedy. Staff confirmed the owner may reapply but that current code acreage limits (discussed by staff as roughly "2 acres per horse, a usable acre") would likely not permit the existing number of animals. Staff also noted wetlands on the parcel reduce usable acreage and complicate any recalculation.

Direction versus formal action: Council did not move a formal motion or take a vote during the work session. The council directed staff to issue an initial email and a certified letter informing the owner of the violation, request a written plan within two weeks, and, if no plan is provided or if the owner does not show good-faith effort, consult the city attorney about beginning the enforcement/prosecution process. Staff advised that legal enforcement can be lengthy and that finding placements for large animals is difficult.

What remains unresolved: No formal enforcement filing had been made by the end of the work session; no new IUP was approved; no timeline beyond the two-week request was adopted as a binding council motion. Staff said more communication and a plan from the owner are prerequisites to further action.

Ending: Staff will send written notice (email followed by a certified letter) and report back to the council with any owner response or lack thereof, and with recommendations about pursuing the attorney-assisted enforcement process if necessary.