CC MINUTES 09092008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 9, 2008 Page 5 think they have enough evidence to consider this dog dangerous. It needs to be questioned that in both of the first two cases they talked about money and nothing was pursued. 4 Mayor Faust indicated there are potentially three motions that could be made: 1) Declare the dog 5 dangerous; 2) Declare the dog potentially dangerous; 3) Declare no action and make no 6 declaration as to anything. 7 8 Councilmember Gray questioned if the label of "potentially dangerous" can be rescinded. Police 9 Chief Ohl replied generally speaking, it is the policy of the Police Department that once the dog 10 has bitten someone a letter is sent stating that the dog is "potentially dangerous" according to the 11 statute. The fact that a dog is potentially dangerous does not require it to be removed from the 12 City; this is only required with the dangerous dog status. 13 14 Mayor Faust clarified with Police Chief Ohl that the dangerous designation is temporary until the 15 hearing is determined. 16 17 Councilmember Stille inquired about the City's liability if the Council determines that the dog is 18 not dangerous and something were to happen tomorrow. City Attorney Gilligan advised that the 19 City does not have any liability. 20 21 Mayor Faust asked if there is anything in the ordinance that would potentially mitigate the label 22 of "potentially dangerous ". Police Chief Ohl replied currently there is not. Staff is working on an 23 improved ordinance. Currently there is not any timeframe and there are not degrees of bites. A 24 bite on the ankle from a Pomeranian is seen as the same as a bite on the leg from a German 25 Shepherd. 26 27 Councilmember Stille suggested consideration in the City ordinance of providing for the ability 28 to remove a dog from "potentially dangerous" status, as is done with the "dangerous dog" status 29 in the statute. Police Chief Ohl indicated that the new language being proposed is a very lengthy 30 provision to the current dog ordinance. 31 32 Mayor Faust commented it would seem if a dog is labeled as potentially dangerous and someone 33 were to take great pains to keep the dog under control in a fenced area and house, it would seem 34 at some point there should be an opportunity for redemption. 35 36 Councilmember Roth stated the first two incidents should be thrown out due to the little bit of 37 evidence. The question is with the third incident. He stated he is the owner of a dog, but it is just 38 a 9 lb poodle. Growing up as a child he saw his brother attacked by a dog and remembers 39 distinctly as a six year old sitting in the car thinking his brother was going to die. He stated he 40 was a paperboy and has been scared by many dogs. Prior to getting a dog he never quite got what 41 a dog could mean to a family, and now having a dog for eight years he would not trade that dog 42 for anything. He stated at this point he is somewhat torn on the one incident. Being someone that 43 was afraid of dogs he would have run and tried to protect himself as much as possible. However, 44 he is a little torn due to all the adequate signs that are there and the fact that the person that was 45 dropping off the flyers was told not to go there. 46