Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-08-2010 Council Minutes I COUNCIL MINUTES November 8,2010 APPROVED 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES 2 MINUTES 3 4 5 DATE : November 8,2010 6 TIME STARTED : 6:30 p.m. 7 TIME ENDED : 8:10 p.m. 8 MEMBERS PRESENT : Councilmember Gallup, O'Donnell, Rafferty, 9 Roeser, and Mayor Reinert 10 MEMBERS ABSENT : none 11 12 Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; City Attorney Joseph Langel; Community 13 Development Director Michael Grochala; Chief of Police Kent Strege; City Engineer Jim Studenski; 14 Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson; Deputy City Clerk Jean Viger 15 16 PUBLIC COMMENT 17 18 Tony Cavegn, 592 Lois Lane, addressed the council regarding his concern about possible budget cuts 19 that could impact police services and specifically the DARE Program. 20 SETTING THE AGENDA 21 22 The agenda was approved as presented. 23 24 CONSENT AGENDA 25 26 Council Member Gallup moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items 1A through 1D. Council 27 Member O'Donnell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 28 29 ITEM ACTION 30 31 Consideration of Expenditures: 32 33 November 8, 2010 (Check No. 89430— 34 89551, $153,999.14) Approved 35 36 Centennial Fire District (Check No. 4541- 37 4555, $4,050.42) Approved 38 39 October 25, 2010 Council Work Session 40 Minutes Approved 41 42 October 25, 2010 City Council Meeting 43 Minutes Approved 44 45 Resolution No. 10-102 approving the MN Metro North 46 Tourism Bureau 2011 Budget Approved 47 ,COUNCIL MINUTES November 8, 2010 APPROVED 48 FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT, AL ROLEK 49 50 There was no report from the Finance Department. 51 52 ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT, DAN TESCH 53 54 There was no report from the Administration Department. 55 56 PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT, KENT STREGE 57 58 4A. Hearing to consider the appeal of Mitchell and Andra Sawh, 1366 Wolf Circle, to a 59 dangerous dog designation. 60 61 Police Chief Strege explained that the dog under consideration has bitten twice in the past year and, 62 under city ordinance and state statute,that dog has been declared dangerous. The dog owner has the 63 right to appeal that designation to the city council. 64 65 Kristen Wills, Lino Lakes Community Service Officer(CSO),read the facts of the bite incidents. 66 Captain Strege showed pictures of the bite involved in the first incident. Ms. Diane Irwin was the 67 victim of the second bite and gave testimony to the council. She explained the circumstances that 68 involved her going through the dog owner's yard to investigate smoke from a fire and how she was 69 bitten. She was bitten in the elbow and then a second time on the hip. She is concerned that the 70 owners were not able to control the dog and that the damage could have been much worse if it had �71 been a toddler or weaker person. Captain Strege pointed out an email from a neighbor expressing 72 concern about the safety of the neighborhood. 73 74 Mitchell Sawh, 1366 Wolf Circle. There's been a series of unfortunate incidents and he is sorry. He 75 is appealing the ruling of a"dangerous dog"classification for his dog. The dog is very young(just 76 over two years old) and is exuberant and sometimes has an instinct to defend(he showed pictures of 77 the dog). He explained the biting/scratch incident in April and the subsequent installation of an 78 electric fence that first worked but ultimately did not contain the dog. The dog is leashed always. He 79 explained the more recent biting incident that involved a woman crossing his property waving her 80 arms. He believes the dog was confused. He explained that the dog is walked often if not daily by his 81 son and his wife and he (the dog) gets along well with young and old persons. They will do what it 82 takes to contain and train the animal and he is pleading that the council allow him to keep his dog. 83 84 Raun Sawh, 1366 Wolf Circle, explained that he was not involved in the most recent incident but was 85 the person chasing the dog when the biting/scratching incident occurred in April. The dog was 86 excited and about being loose and jumped up on a person walking. Since then he has been in the 87 yard and is walked every day. He takes him to softball and he gets along well with people and other 88 dogs. He is well socialized and never has a problem when they are walking him. With the second 89 incident,he may have been afraid of the smoke and all the commotion going on. He does not believe 90 he is dangerous. 91 92 Andra Sawh, 1366 Wolf Circle, explained the recent incident. She was outside grooming the dog and 93 at the same time the neighbor was burning leaves but not so that she could see him. She was 94 controlling the dog when a woman came walking by talking on a cell phone, waving her arms. She 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 I, COUNCIL MINUTES November 8, 2010 APPROVED 141 amount at a minimum of$300,000 with the city additional insured, signage as required,notification L./,42 of neighbors as advised by the city) and a review process of the designation allowed after six months. 143 144 Council Member Gallup moved approval any and all conditions of Minnesota Statute 347.50 through 145 347.56 including the addition of the city on the policy and notification of neighbors in the immediate 146 area(to be designated by staff). The dog owner can request a review of the designation as allowed by 147 statute. Council Member Roeser seconded the motion. 148 149 A council member indicated that he would not support the motion because he cannot in good 150 conscious allow a dangerous dog to remain in the city; that would not represent the greatest good for 151 the greatest number in this city. He hopes the dog could be removed from the city without having to 152 be destroyed. 153 154 A council member recognized that moving the dog out of the city includes a requirement to notify the 155 new jurisdiction which would put in place their rules. Another council member agreed that there is 156 too much at risk if the dog were to bite again. 157 158 A council member asked the family to respond to the requirements. Mitchell Sawh indicated that 159 they will absolutely follow the directions—whatever is necessary. They will be officially informed by 160 the city of the requirements. 161 162 Motion carried on a voice vote; Council Members O'Donnell and Rafferty voted no. '63 '164 PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT, RICK DEGARDNER 165 166 There was no report from the Public Services Department. 167 168 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT,MICHAEL GROCHALA 169 170 6A. Resolution No. 10-99,Approving Final Payment for the 2010 Street Sealcoat Project—City 171 Engineer Studenski noted that Pearson Brothers completed this project based on the city's direction. 172 The project came in slightly below the projection. All work has been reviewed and found to be 173 satisfactory so he is recommending approval of the final payment project. 174 175 Council Member O'Donnell moved to approved Resolution No. 10-99 as presented. Council Member 176 Gallup seconded the motion. Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. 177 178 6B. Resolution No. 10-100,Authorizing Application to the 2010 to 2012 Community Forest 179 Bonding Grant—Environmental Coordinator Asleson reported that staff is requesting authorization to 180 apply for grant funds to be used to add species diversity to its forest. If successful,the city could 181 purchase up to $25,000 or about 175 trees for parks and boulevards. The council confirmed that the 182 species planted would be considerate of current tree disease problems. 183 184 Council Member Rafferty moved to approve Resolution No. 10-100 as presented. Council Member 85 O'Donnell seconded the motion. Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. 186 , I, COUNCIL MINUTES November 8,2010 APPROVED 187 6C. Resolution No. 10—101,Approving Amendment to Marshan Meadows Development 88 Contract—City Engineer Studenski explained that the requested amendment to this development that 189 was approved in 2006 relates to the current insolvent position of the developer, Bruggeman Properties. 190 There are escrow funds available to complete necessary work. The remaining undeveloped lots have 191 been purchased for sale by Citizens State Bank who would be allowed to utilize the remaining escrow 192 funds and would supplement the funds to complete the work as necessary and hopefully this fall. All 193 parties to the contract are in agreement to its terms. 194 195 Council Member Gallup moved to approve Resolution No. 10-101 as presented. Council Member 196 Rafferty seconded the motion. Motion adopted on a unanimous voice vote. 197 198 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 199 200 There was no Unfinished Business. 201 202 NEW BUSINESS 203 204 There was no New Business. 205 206 COMMUNITY CALENDAR: 207 208 Community Calendar—A Look Ahead 109 November 9, 2010 through November 22, 2010 4210 Wednesday,November 10 6:15 pm, Community Room Council Work Session 211 4. Wednesday,November 10 6:30 pm, Council Chambers Planning&Zoning 212 Thursday,November 11 Veterans Day City Hall Closed 213 Monday,November 22 5:30 pm,Community Room Council Work Session 214 21z. Monday,November 22 6:30 pm, Council Chambers City Council Meeting 215 216 217 ADJOURN 218 219 There being no further business, Council Member Rafferty moved to adjourn at 8:10 p.m. Council 220 Member Roeser seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 221 222 These minutes were considered and approved at the regular Coun ' ∎, --ting, • - u '-r 22, 2010. 223 224 225 \\ 22 A 227 Juli e Bartell, City lerk Jeff ''ei ert, Mayor 228