CC PACKET 09232008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 9, 2008 page 6 1 Councilmember Stille stated the reason he was interested in the fencing is that the situation with 2 the invisible fencing lends itself to the possibility of people hying to take advantage of the 3 situation. This will not likely be an issue if they can get some fencing and keep the dog in the 4 back yard. If they go through the motions and label the dog as "potentially dangerous", which he 5 is now anyways, there should not be any problems. He stated lie would be happy to revisit this at 6 some time if the ordinance allows for it. He knows people that do not like to walls down Croft 7 Drive because of the dog. It appears vicious and lunges at people as they go by, but it does stop 8 at the fence. That is where it sets itself up for people to take advantage of that. There should be 9 no problem with the dog staying in the City of St. Anthony with an amended structure. 10 11 Mayor Faust stated a lot of credence is not given to the first two individuals. With the third 12 individual, whether or not there is a sign, it does not preclude people firorn handing out flyers and 13 there is a certain responsibility of owners. He stated he is not opposed to having a "potentially 14 dangerous" dog label, and it could possibly be included in the motion that a fence be built to 15 keep the dog in the yard. He is a little reluctant to do this, but it could be highly encouraged. I -[e 16 would look forward to the possibility at some time of the animal coming off the "potentially 17 dangerous" list, which could be addressed with the ordinance change. If someone takes the extra 18 effort and steps to address the situation it should be acknowledged. He stated the City Council 19 has the obligation to protect the public at Large and to make people free to securely walls down 20 the street. However, at the same time they need to protect the individual that has a dog that may 21 have been taken advantage of. He indicated he is leaning towards a designation of potentially 22 dangerous. 23 24 Motion by COUncihnen]ber Gray, seconded by Councilmember Roth, to remove the label of 25 "dangerous dog" on the dog in question without any stipulations. 26 27 Councilmember Stille questioned what the dog would be classified as if the label of "dangerous 28 dog" were to be removed. City Attorney Gilligan replied the dog would remain labeled as 29 "potentially dangerous" if the label of "dangerous dog" were to be removed. 30 31 Mr. Blackey stated his understanding is that Guido was labeled "potentially dangerous" through 32 the first report. He believes the "potentially dangerous" label would be removed, as would be the 33 situation with the second report. With the third incident his only concern or question is that the 34 dog being provoked should be taken into consideration. The dog was kicked at and he did not 35 pursue the individual when he went away. 36 37 Cormcilmember Roth expressed concern with "potentially dangerous" being so open-ended. 38 Having been a paperboy, a German Shepherd sprinted out at him early in the morning and lie 39 turned and ran. He does not know if that was provoking the dog, but it was on his heels and he 40 thought he was going to die. He struggles with this and struggles with requiring someone to 41 invest in a fence. 42 43 Mayor Faust verified with City Attorney Gilligan that the motion on the floor would move the 44 dog from a "dangerous" label to a "potentially dangerous" label. 45 46 The motion on the floor was withdrawn. 7