City hears divided input on leash law; staff recommends status quo while advisory committee backs strict leash rule

Council considered two separate animal‑control questions: whether to make the city’s leash rule stricter (removing an explicit voice‑control exception) and whether to set an absolute limit on the number of household pets.

Assistant city manager Steven Bond and assistant city attorney Kim Carley presented options. Carley outlined three choices: keep the status quo (running at large prohibited, voice control allowed), enact a strict leash law with no exceptions, or enact a leash law with a permitting exception for dogs that complete an accepted training/certification program. Carley warned that a permit system could complicate prosecution of attacks and impose administrative burdens—she noted that permitting and enforcement standards would need careful drafting to avoid undermining existing dangerous‑dog statutes.

Robust public input came from an online process of roughly 600 respondents and about 350 comments. Robin McCormick summarized the input: roughly 75% of respondents favored a physical leash requirement when animals are off their owner’s property; about two‑thirds supported a household cap, commonly pointing to four adult dogs as a reference. Public comments ranged from calls for stricter enforcement and more dog parks to concerns about fairness, enforcement feasibility and the risk of over‑regulation.

On attack statistics staff and the advisory committee reported 2016 totals of 90 dog attacks; committee/staff noted only one documented attack in 2016 involved a dog under voice control and six attacks involved dogs on leashes, with the majority involving strays or animals that had broken from property.

The Animal Control Advisory Committee recommended a strict leash law with no exceptions; staff recommended maintaining the status quo citing limited enforcement resources, sparse evidence that voice‑control cases cause attacks and the administrative costs of a permit program. Council members split in their views: some favored moving to a strict leash law to increase public comfort and clarity; others said limited resources and legal complexity counsel caution.

Council asked the advisory committee and staff to return with additional detail—regional standards used elsewhere, proposed certification/permit language if pursued, and attack‑history data covering 2014–2016—before the council undertakes code changes. On the separate question of a numeric household limit, council signaled it would not pursue a cap now and asked staff to prioritize answers on the leash question instead.