03-15-2005 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 15, 2005 5 6. NEW BUSINESS: A. Ordinance No. 97-151:Relating to Dogs At the Public Health and Safety Council Committee, the committee recommended the modifications to the animal control ordinance prepared by the Community Improvement Commission. This issue has been studied by the CIC for a number of months, has gone to Council for action and referred back to the PH&S Committee for final review. In the proposed ordinance; if any owner is not at home a dog may not be secured by an invisible fence. Lake Elmo resident Jeanette Behr pointed out that the consequences for dogs that are found loose are already established in the ordinance. If you leave home with your dog in the invisible fence, you have already violated the proposed ordinance. Ms. Behr noted that the ordinance needs to be fine tuned because it does not give enough definition of owner at home and places the animal control officer in an uncomfortable and difficult situation. She suggested that “invisible fencing” be changed to “underground pet containment system” because invisible fencing is a trademark. Ms. Behr volunteered to assist in amending the ordinance. Lake Elmo resident Linda Wagner said she has had an invisible fence since 1994 so will these fences be grandfathered in. She asked if this was a city-wide issue. If the dog is at large, cite the dog as at large and use the 3 strike rule. Mayor Johnston responded that the Council discussed the 3-strike system and it became too complicated to work with. Council member Johnson didn’t think the amendment was warranted based on the ACO report that only four dogs wearing the collars picked up both in 2003 and 2004. Johnson said if a dog is at large, it’s at large and we have a system in place to handle that. Both Johnson and Lake Elmo resident Bret Emmons indicated the ordinance was penalizing individuals using an underground system and who have done good work in following through with training. Council member Smith said the Animal Control Officer lives 25 miles away and doesn’t always get here in time to see the dog out. Council member Johnson responded that if the problem is response time may be we should look at who we are using for animal control. Attorney Filla agreed that the amendment lacked clear language as to the definition of owner at home and as to enforcement. M/S/P Smith/Johnston - to table Ordinance No. 97-151, An Ordinance Relating to Confinement of Dogs for clarification by staff for the definition of owner at home, enforcement if an animal is not properly confined and change the name of invisible fencing to underground pet containment system and bring this ordinance back to the council committee for review. (Motion passed 5-0). Council member DeLapp suggested, once the ordinance has been adopted, request the Animal Control Officer report back in a year on how effective this ordinance.