CC WS PACKET 09092025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

August 26, 2025 St. Anthony Council Work Session - 2 amended language. Following this discussion and feedback, the proposed language will be brought forward to the City Council for formal consideration. Mr. Sonterre made some additional changes to the language offered to the City Council in Section C and Section 8. Councilmember Jenson referred to the State Statute being more definitive and asked Mr. Sonterre to explain the differences. Mr. Sonterre stated the main differences are that the State Statute has a defined list of definitions between a potentially dangerous dog and a dangerous dog, and what the qualifiers are. The existing language did not replicate that information in the determination process. Councilmember Jenson asked if the requirements are now mirrored with the State Statute. Mr. Sonterre stated that a process has been created to determine the category of the dog. This also outlines an appeal process and a process for reassessing a dog. Councilmember Elnagdy stated she has concerns with two sections – Section C Sub 7 and 8. She noted that 7 days before a dog is destroyed is less than one pay cycle, and this seems like an inequitable application because if you don’t have the money, you can’t get the dog back. Those without the funds are being punished. Councilmember Jenson asked about the rationale for the number of days for the owner to respond. Mr. Sonterre stated it is consistent with other cities. We followed the language that other cities have been using. Mr. Sonterre stated the only question on the financial piece is whether there would be a change between 7 and 14 days to make a payment. There is a cost for the number of days the dog is held. Mayor Webster asked if the City has the dog in its possession. The longer we wait, the higher the cost for getting the dog back. Councilmember Randle stated he does not see an issue with it being 7 or 14 days. A responsible dog owner does what needs to be done. He does not like the fact that we need to police people with their dogs. Equity has no place. If you can afford to own a pet, you should be able to afford to do the right thing. Councilmember Elnagdy stated she disagrees and believes equity should be involved in every discussion at every level of government. She sees the difference between 7 and 14 days, with 14 days allowing for owner to receive a paycheck. She does not think asking for a pay cycle is an unreasonable accommodation. Councilmember Doolan asked if payment arrangements could be made and keep it at 7 days. Councilmember Jenson stated that if someone cannot afford to pay, they will put off payment. He asked if State Statutes include this language, and Mr. Sonterre stated that this is the same as other cities and is not included in State Statutes. If the cost is not paid by the owner, it will be paid by the City. This is not happening often in the City. 4