Richland County committee asks staff to study options to address animal noise complaints

The Richland County Development and Services Committee on May 5 directed county staff to research options for addressing animal-noise complaints, from limits on the number of pets per household to stronger kennel licensing and zoning-based approaches.

At a committee meeting, Assistant County Administrator (ACA) Jensen presented data showing an increase in pet ownership nationwide (he cited "94 million U.S. households" with at least one pet) and a rise in barking-related calls during the COVID years that staff said has since stabilized at roughly "about 250 calls per year." Jensen reviewed a 1975 model noise ordinance and noted state code language that preempts county regulation of agricultural noises, framing several policy realms the county could explore: a numerical limit on pets, stricter kennel or breeder licensing and review, regulations on the physical placement of animal habitats, and owner-conduct provisions such as mediation or training programs.

"One potential strategy is simply reducing the number of animals that can be allowed in any household," Jensen said, noting a common U.S. standard limiting three dogs and/or cats per household and recommending a kennel-license path for properties exceeding any set limit.

Councilmember Terracio Cooper said the data and ombudsman complaint counts in the briefing packet supported pursuing an ordinance that balances residents' peace and animal welfare, recounting constituent complaints and saying some residents had been "terrorized in their own homes." Cooper urged staff to model language on comparable counties with both urban and rural areas and to ensure any ordinance is enforceable rather than merely symbolic.

Director Haines, who works with animal-care enforcement, told the committee that while residents often supply audio and video recordings, magistrate enforcement requires more—substantial review of recordings and witness testimony—and many complainants do not pursue cases to court. "We do get a lot of video, audio," Haines said, "but it takes more than just having video and audio and taking it to court." He added that most animal complaints are barking dogs, followed by roosters, with larger-animal complaints much less common.

Members discussed practical enforcement options, including escalating penalties for repeat offenders and tying restrictions to zoning districts to avoid imposing the same limits on rural properties where farm animals are common. Staff explained the existing commercial-breeder/kennel license process: a business-license application, zoning verification, an animal-care inspection, a $100 kennel license fee, and a requirement to license every dog over four months of age.

Committee members repeatedly emphasized enforceability. "We don't want an ordinance that doesn't have the teeth to make it enforceable," Cooper said, urging staff to examine outcomes of enforcement actions and to recommend provisions law enforcement and the magistrate system will be able to implement.

The committee asked staff to compile model ordinances from counties with mixed urban and rural populations, to analyze enforcement results and penalties used elsewhere, and to return with draft options that reflect members' concerns. The group did not enact an ordinance at the meeting; the committee's direction was to have staff research and report back with potential means and draft language options.

The meeting also handled routine business: approval of May 19 minutes and adoption of the meeting agenda, then adjourned.

Next steps: staff will research model legislation, enforcement outcomes, zoning-linked approaches, and penalty structures and return to the committee with potential ordinance language or options for further committee consideration.