Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council reviews draft animal ordinance that would allow limited backyard fowl and prohibit venomous exotic animals

5805854 · July 14, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

On first reading of Ordinance 25-511, staff proposed repeal-and-replace language for Chapter 10 (Animals) that clarifies definitions, adds provisions on backyard chickens/ducks/rabbits, addresses nuisance animals and permits, and bars venomous exotic animals from the city.

City Attorney Bill Pfeiffer and staff presented first reading of Ordinance 25-511 on July 7, a repeal-and-replace of Chapter 10 (Animals). Pfeiffer said the draft’s purpose is “to promote the proper control and care of animals by their owners and others for the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City of Alpena.”

Key elements reviewed include definitions for animals and owner responsibilities, provisions regulating bees, fowl and livestock, rules for raising chickens/ducks/rabbits (combined maximum of six, hens only — no roosters), licensing and enforcement for dogs, and a clarification that keeping venomous or dangerous exotic animals would not be allowed under the ordinance. Pfeiffer explained that for dog-control violations the draft adds a civil-infraction option for first offenses and reserves misdemeanor prosecution for repeat offenders.

Council members discussed how the ordinance would handle exotic or venomous animals and whether permitting or notification to first responders would be appropriate; staff said the draft currently prohibits venomous animals within the city and that the ordinance had been silent on them previously. Staff noted they were seeking further public input via the city master-plan survey and would return for a second reading.

No adoption vote was taken; this was first reading only and council scheduled a second reading at the July 21 meeting.