CRESTVIEW — The city's proposed animal control ordinance that was sent back to city staff for revisions has been sent back for more revisions.
City Clerk Betsy Roy said several provisions were addressed based on City Council members' feedback from residents.
"The four areas of concerns seem to be chickens, the number of animals, tethering and, to some extent, pot-belly pigs," Roy said.
Council members said they felt some of the proposed regulations were too far-reaching for government and were overly burdensome for residents.
"I don't want to start imposing on people rules and regulations where I don't think it's necessary," Councilwoman Robyn Helt said at Monday evening's workshop.
"If a person has five chickens too many do we call the chicken police?" Councilman Tom Gordon said. "I want as little government as possible regulating something as simple as animals."
Council President Shannon Hayes sought council members' consensus on each topic before directing Roy and her staff to revise the ordinance again.
Regulating the number of pets a resident can have should be left up to the pet owner, but mediating regulations should be included if the pets cause a nuisance, council members said.
With Gordon dissenting, the other council members also agreed that a provision prohibiting animal tethering is not needed in the new ordinance.
The revisions would also allow residents to raise chickens for eggs but not for slaughter, and would permit pet pot-belly pigs within city limits.
While city staffers work on revisions to a proposed new animal control ordinance, the current ordinance has been updated. The Crestview City Council, on a 3-2 vote, has aligned the city's animal control ordinance with county regulations and eliminated references to the city operating its own animal control services. Currently, the city contracts animal control services with the Panhandle Animal Welfare Society.
Councilman Mickey Rytman, who with councilman Joe Blocker cast a nay vote, suggested as it prepares the 2014-15 budget, the council weigh the cost of running its own animal control unit versus the cost of the PAWS contract.