11-08-2010 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES November 8,2010 APPROVED 95 was talking loudly and waving her arms and she believes the dog thought he needed to protect her L... 96 (Ms. Sawh). The dog isn't aggressive and she takes him to functions and has never had a problem. 97 When Ms. Sawh asked the woman if she was okay, she said yes and that she felt she provoked the 98 dog. She tried to help the victim. She doesn't feel that the dog is dangerous. She has worked with 99 the Police Department and was told they had done a good job dealing with the first incident. 100 101 A council member noted his research on these situations. He's talked to police officers involved, the 102 Sawhs, insurance agents, some homeowners in the neighbors, a victim, and the electric fence people. 103 He got more information to be diligent with the decision he has to make. He feels there concern 104 about the dog especially where there are children involved. 105 106 A council member then noted he's been around many dogs,big and small, and he doesn't think the 107 behavior of this dog is typical. The facts are that this dog has displayed aggressive behavior twice. 108 He asked for an explanation of the options available to the council for dealing with this situation. 109 110 City Attorney Langel explained that the first question before the council is if they concur with the 111 police department's designation of"dangerous animal". If so the options are to have the animal 112 destroyed or to impose certain requirements laid out in statute that would allow the dog to be retained. 113 The Mayor noted that the dog could also be relocated. A council member asked about liability to the 114 city and the city attorney explained that since the ordinance is backed up by state statute, he would 115 instruct the council to follow what is allowed under that statute or face liability. 116 17 Finance Officer Rolek explained that he spoke with the League of Minnesota Cities (the city's carrier) - 118 about insurance. He reiterated the statutory requirement for keeping a certain level of insurance 119 coverage related to the dog and the opinion of the League representative that it would be very difficult 120 if not impossible to obtain that insurance. Regarding liability, Mr. Rolek has been told that the city 121 could be named in a case and the League insurance would be the city's coverage. 122 123 The Mayor suggested that he is leaning toward supporting a motion to allow the dog to remain with 124 the very strict restrictions. A council member asked how the restrictions would be enforced and what 125 consequences would occur if they are not followed. It was also mentioned that the homeowners 126 association rules in the dog owner's development don't allow for fences (one of the requirements). 127 The City attorney stated that the statute does allow the animal owner the ability to request a review of 128 the designation on a time controlled basis. On the matter of what happens with an enforcement 129 violation, Chief Strege explained that the department wouldn't be able to check on the situation every 130 day, but if they find a violation,they are authorized to seize the dog. The restrictions would be those 131 laid out in statute, including registration, enclosure, insurance (with the city named as additionally 132 insured), signage, and notification. A review of the designation as allowed by statute is also included. 133 134 On the question of affirming the dangerous animal designation, Council Member Roeser moved to 135 affirm the designation. Council Member O'Donnell seconded the motion. Motion carried on a 136 unanimous voice vote. 137 138 The council then considered the question of stipulations attached to allowing the dangerous dog to 39 remain in the city, any and all statutory requirements under Chapter 347.50 through 347.56 (included 140 but not limited to registration, enclosure as defined in statute, requirement for insurance policy in an