CC PACKET 07282020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes July 14, 2020 Page 3 Councilmember Walker stated as an owner of a dog he has a certain sensitivity and objectivity 1 about the relationship between pets and owners. He did not have a problem with the definition 2 of their dog being classified as a dangerous dog, it is more the consequences of being labeled a 3 dangerous dog. The muzzle seems to nullify a lot of the concerns for future incidents. If the 4 owners are in compliance with that, even with the designation of being a dangerous dog, he 5 thought that was something to be considered in a decision about where the City goes with 6 Hammerheart. Mr. Socha explained if the City reverses the designation, they will still continue 7 to have Hammerheart wear the muzzle if he is off of their property and also to wear a walking 8 harness recommended by Bark Busters. 9 10 Councilmember Webster asked Mr. Casey to share with the Council and audience that if the City 11 Council appeals the order and this dog bites another person, would the City be liable. Mr. Casey 12 indicated he would not have a direct answer for that, but he would assume it would have some 13 sort of affect on the City’s insurance rates that would come back and place them into a higher 14 classification. The insurance does look at the City’s risk and also at claims that the City has and 15 as a part of that formula it is determined what kind of premium to charge the City. He noted he 16 has not had any discussion with the insurance agent, but he thought the City could be at a greater 17 risk if something like this would happen again. 18 19 Mrs. Socha indicated if she is a lawyer and if a claim were brought against the City it would 20 affect its insurance rates but she did not foresee anything like this happening again because this 21 startled them and they plan on taking additional precautions along with additional intensive 22 training as well as having their dog wear a muzzle and walking harness along with building a 23 fence. She also indicated they currently have State Farm Insurance and that does cover dog bites 24 and that insurance is for $300,000 and they also carry a one million dollar umbrella policy so 25 they would be the first liable under the dangerous dog statutes and it is only if the damages 26 exceed what their insurance would cover up to one million dollars so there would not be any 27 reason for someone to make a claim against the City. 28 29 Mrs. Socha indicated the City Ordinance, 91.36, is an unusual Ordinance and she did some 30 research and could not find another Ordinance that said that if a dog is labeled a dangerous dog 31 that it could not stay in the City. The Statutory scheme seems to be that if a dog meets the 32 definition of a dangerous dog that these precautions and restrictions have to take place, which 33 quite frankly, registering with the City and having a sign that says “dangerous dog lives here” 34 and wearing a dangerous dog tag on the muzzle are the only things they are not currently doing 35 already. She stated the Ordinance get more extreme if there is another incidence, once declared a 36 dangerous dog. The City has the discretion to put the dog down if there are multiple bites. It 37 seems when she reviewed the Statute that the Statutory Scheme actually conflicts with the 38 Ordinance which states a dangerous dog cannot stay in the City. She thought the Ordinance was 39 problematic and thought it would be worth the City’s time and consideration to review this at a 40 future time. 41 42 Councilmember Jenson asked if the City were to move forward with allowing them to keep the 43 dog and to drop the designation, does the history of the two bites stay with the City. He did not 44 think the track record should go away. Mrs. Socha thought the history would stay with the City 45 as a public record. Mr. Casey indicated the City would retain a history. 46 3