Safety committee weighs enforcement approach for electric (invisible) dog fences

The safety committee reviewed a recent complaint about an invisible (electric) fence and debated how the village ordinance’s confinement/responsibility language should be interpreted and enforced. The committee chair noted that “an electric fence is not meant to physically confine a dog,” and members discussed whether an invisible fence counts as a secure enclosure under the current code.

Police and code‑enforcement staff described the practical approach: rather than a proactive door‑to‑door enforcement sweep, officers will respond when neighbors call with complaints. Staff told the committee that initial enforcement steps would involve written notification and a follow‑up inspection after a short compliance period (e.g., 10 days) before issuing fines or other penalties. One council member suggested public notice to inform owners that electric fences may not meet the ordinance and give them time to remedy violations.

Committee members also recounted specific incidents that prompted the review, including reports of dogs running loose and one attack that helped trigger the complaint. Officers emphasized the need for reasonable officer discretion and that the code already requires owners to “keep the dog physically confined or restrained … by a leash, tether, adequate fence, supervision, or secure enclosure.” The committee did not propose an immediate change to the ordinance; instead, it recommended notification and case‑by‑case enforcement while staff consider potential clarifying edits to the code.