Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tacoma committee advances broad animal-control changes after neighbors urge clearer rules on pigs
Summary
Neighbors told the Government Performance & Finance Committee on Jan. 21 that a pig kept next door caused noise, flies and safety concerns, prompting staff to propose a package of Title 17 changes — including mandatory spay/neuter for repeatedly impounded animals, higher fees for unaltered pets and a new pig license — to address animal overpopulation.
Neighbors shared accounts of disrupted sleep, increased flies and a pig pen built along a shared boundary during the Government Performance & Finance Committee meeting on Jan. 21, 2025, prompting the committee to consider updates to the city’s animal-control code.
Maureen Wells, who said she lives in District 1, described a pig kept in a front-yard pen that “runs the length of our shared property line” and said it grunted loudly starting as early as 4:30 a.m. She told the committee the pen “was built using our shared fence as one of its sides” and that she and other neighbors experienced flies and odors. Her husband, Ed Wells, said he was “shocked to learn that this law could be interpreted to mean that pigs are legal while hogs are not,” and asked that the ordinance be rewritten so “all members of the swine family…need to be identified in the law to avoid the current situation in the future.”
Those public comments tied directly to a staff-led briefing later in the meeting on proposed updates to Title 17 (animal control). Chair Council Member Hines framed the problem as animal overpopulation that is straining shelter and patrol resources and outlined several proposals to reduce unowned or unmanaged animals in the community.
Olga Darlington of Moss Adams and other presenters were not part of the animal-code discussion; city staff described the Title 17 package as including: a requirement that animals impounded more than once within 12 months be spayed or neutered before redemption; higher license fees for unaltered dogs and cats to incentivize alteration (examples discussed included raising unaltered-cat licenses from $65 to $175 and unaltered-dog licenses from $65 to $175); a reduced fee for seniors and households that qualify for the city’s utility bill assistance program; and a new licensing category for pigs.
The code draft would also restrict the number of unaltered animals a household may keep (the draft retains a cap on total animals while making clear the city expects most animals to be altered), and would prohibit commercial breeding and sale of puppies and other companion animals except in narrowly defined, exemption cases (for example, accidental litters or rehoming). The proposal includes formal recognition of “community cats” and allows trap-neuter-return (TNR) approaches for feral or unowned cats so they may be altered and returned to the community instead of being treated as stray intake for the shelter.
Council members pressed staff on capacity and enforcement. Several members said they want more information from the Humane Society and from animal-control staff about intake and where animals originate, noting the shelter serves Pierce County as well as the city. Council Member Rumbaugh said she was concerned that the humane-society facility is “overburdened,” pointed to staffing and kennel-limit issues, and warned against measures that effectively require the humane society to hold more animals without additional resources. Others asked how license fee revenue could be used to expand low-cost spay/neuter programs and whether there should be special verification or reduced rates for people who are unhoused.
Chair Hines said he intends to take constituent feedback and committee suggestions back to staff for follow-up and signaled a future study-session return; he did not move the ordinance for final approval at the Jan. 21 meeting.
Community members and committee members identified next steps including: (1) receiving written responses from the Humane Society on intake sources and holding times; (2) staff analysis of how increased license revenue might scale up low-cost spay/neuter programs; and (3) continued discussion of pig rules, including distinctions between outdoor and indoor pigs, minimum lot/yard requirements for outdoor swine, and whether indoor pigs should be limited to one animal or two and require microchipping and leash rules when off-property.
The committee did not adopt an ordinance on Jan. 21; members asked staff for follow-up information and signaled further deliberation at a future meeting.
