HomeMy WebLinkAbout12.21.2009APPEAL HEARING
December 21, 2009
4:10 p.m.
Council Chambers
The meeting was called to order at 4:42 p.m.
Members present: Getty, Hart, Greenwood, Steve Schmitt, Welper, Reggie Schmitt. Absent:
Cole.
Moved by Reggie Schmitt, seconded by Steve Schmitt that the Agenda, as proposed, be
approved. Ayes: Six. Absent: Cole. Motion carried.
Mayor Hurley stated that now was the time for the hearing on the appeal by Corey Dripps of
Section 5-1B-7 of the Waterloo Code of Ordinances, Registration of Potentially Dangerous
Dogs, for a dog named Duke.
Denise Lorenz, Animal Control Officer, stated that the original complaint against the dog, Duke,
came on October 4, 2009. She stated that at that time a gentleman came forward and stated that
he was walking his dog by Corey Dripps' home when Duke came out after the gentleman and
then attacked his dog. Ms. Lorenz stated that the gentleman's dog did incur some minor injuries,
but at that time the gentleman signed some citations for dog at -large and fear of attack against
Duke. She stated that the first citations were served, went through court and Mr. Dripps was
found guilty of those citations. Ms. Lorenz stated that on November 9, 2009 the same gentleman
was walking along the dike around Black Hawk and Downing, which is not far from Corey
Dripps' home. She stated that Mr. Dripps' daughter had a hold of Duke at this time, but the dog
got away from her and went after the gentleman again. Mr. Lorenz stated that the gentleman
again signed citations for dog at -large and fear of attack. She stated that since it was the second
incident, it was decided to put the dog on the potentially dangerous dog list.
Mayor Hurley asked what the letter is that states must contain current rabies, must obtain a
current city license, microchipping, ect. Ms. Lorenz stated that if a dog needs to go on a
potentially dangerous dog list the owner needs to be given proper notification. She stated that to
be on the potentially dangerous dog list they have to fill all of the requirements on the list. Once
the requirements are fulfilled, they get a certificate saying yes the dog is on a potentially
dangerous dog list and can keep the dog in the City of Waterloo. She stated basically if the
owner fulfills the requirements, they can keep the dog.
Mayor Hurley asked what was determined in court. Ms. Lorenz stated that Corey Dripps was
found guilty of the first citations from the October 4, 2009 incidents. She stated that the
November 9, 2009 incidents have not been set for court at this time.
Corey Dripps stated that he had some copies for Mayor and Council. He stated that he did go to
court and was found guilty of dog at -large and fear of attack. Mr. Dripps stated that he refused
to testify because of ongoing litigation with Mr. Mueller and the court would not remove Mr.
Mueller from the proceedings, so took his attorney's advise to take the $200.00 citation and not
testify in court. He stated that the handouts are a petition and on the top of each page it states
that the following individuals have had interaction and experience with the Labrador, Duke, and
would like to petition the City of Waterloo to keep him off of the potentially dangerous dog
registry. He stated that Duke is a fun -loving, friendly, family dog who is not aggressive, playful
and obedient. Mr. Dripps stated that all the individuals on the petition have had interaction with
his dog. He stated that he also handed out a basic timeline of all of the problems that he has
encountered with Mr. Mueller. Mr. Dripps stated that it has been an on -going situation with this
neighbor who lives approximately 5 blocks away from their home and crosses University
Avenue to torment his family. He stated that the Police Department has been called on at least
three occasions and Mr. Mueller was finally arrested on Saturday, November 21, 2009 on a
weapons charge. Mr. Dripps stated that he found out on December 20, 2009 that he has also had
a confrontation with his neighbor. He stated that he also handed out an e-mail from his breeder
that they have never had any problems with any of their dogs. Mr. Dripps stated that he believes
this is an isolated incident with one personal individual who has a personal vendetta against his
family. He stated that Duke has never bitten Mr. Mueller and Mr. Mueller has stabbed his dog in
Appeal Hearing
December 21, 2009
Page 2
the throat. Mr. Dripps stated that he has brought the bills from the veterinary when Duke had to
have stitches.
Mayor Hurley asked Mr. Dripps about pending litigations. Mr. Dripps confirmed that there is a
civil lawsuit pending at this time. Councilperson Hart asked about some documents indicating
when Duke had to go to the veterinarian and asked what the dates were for those. Mr. Dripps
responded that was on November 9, 2009 and he also brought a copy of Mr. Mueller's record.
Mr. Dripps stated that Mr. Mueller has continued to walk in front of his home to cause problems.
Mr. Dripps stated that his dog, Duke, is a fun loving and nonaggressive dog.
Ms. Lorenz stated that this has been the same gentleman for both incidents. She stated that Mr.
Dripps does have a point with it being the same person twice, yet on the other side a list was
provided to place Duke on a potentially dangerous dog list and they have the option of keeping
the dog in the City of Waterloo.
Councilperson Steve Schmitt asked if the list has been done for the potentially dangerous dog
list. Ms. Lorenz stated that the time frame changes because he has filed an appeal and will begin
after the appeal is done.
Moved by Getty, seconded by Reggie Schmitt that the hearing be closed and oral and written
comments be received and placed on file. Ayes: Six. Absent: Cole.
Moved by Getty, seconded by Welper to reverse the decision of Animal Control.
Prior to a vote on the above motion, the following comments were heard.
Councilperson Reggie Schmitt stated that he will vote not to reverse the decision of Animal
Control because the ordinance is written so there is zero tolerance and it states that any dog that
attacks any human being or another domestic animal without provocation is potentially
dangerous and Duke has done it twice. Councilperson Reggie Schmitt states that the dog has the
tendency to run and go after someone regardless of who it is. The bottom line is Duke has gone
after another person or dog twice and it makes him potentially dangerous. Councilperson Reggie
Schmitt stated that Duke will be able to stay with his owners; he just has to meet the criteria with
the insurance and earmarking. Councilperson Reggie Schmitt stated that the ordinance is zero
tolerance and that Duke did everything that the ordinance states he could not do.
Councilperson Getty stated that the only reason why he changed the motion was the fact that the
allocations seem to all stem from one person and nobody else in the neighborhood has had any
problems with the dog.
Councilperson Welper stated that he agrees with Councilperson Reggie Schmitt, but at the same
time the dog may be just being a dog and if he was provoked by this individual once, that dog
will remember that. Councilperson Welper stated that if the dog keeps going after that same
individual, then it may be the individual causing the problem and not the dog.
Councilperson Greenwood asked Mr. Dripps if the dog is normally confined in a fenced yard.
Mr. Dripps responded that the dog is normally a housedog. Councilperson Greenwood asked
about the November 9, 2009 incident when the dog was stabbed. Mr. Dripps stated that he and
his two children were walking back from the park. He stated that he handed the leash to his 8
year old so he could help his 2 year old walk back. He stated that once they got to the top of the
dike, Mr. Mueller was at the bottom of the dike and he called Duke while snapping his fingers.
Mr. Dripps stated that when Duke ran up to Mr. Mueller, he pulled his dog aside and began
stabbing Duke. Councilperson Greenwood asked if any charges were filed on this incident. Mr.
Dripps stated that when he called the police department, they told him it would be in his best
interest to let it go because the dog had gotten loose from his daughter. Mr. Dripps stated that
after another incident the police department did find a military style knife on Mr. Mueller and
arrested him.
• •
Appeal Hearing
December 21, 2009
Page 3
• •
Councilperson Steve Schmitt stated that he has empathy, unfortunately, the city has this
ordinance in place. He stated that Mr. Dripps will have to get the list of items done in order to
keep the dog and its not as if Duke will have to be put down or out of the county. He asked that
if Mr. Dripps were to pursue the legal course against Mr. Mueller and it was found in his favor,
then couldn't council's action tonight be reversed. Mayor Hurley stated that the issue here is
between Animal Control and Mr. Dripps.
Councilperson Hart stated that Mr. Dripps probably has a wonderful dog that has gotten into a
couple difficult situations but would stick with the original motion. He stated that he would like
to leave the civil litigations out of this.
Councilperson Reggie Schmitt asked about the first incident when the dog was at -large. Mr.
Dripps stated that it was when Mr. Mueller had his dog urinating in his front yard and Duke was
outside. Mr. Dripps stated that Duke and Mr. Mueller's dog then started to sniff each other and
then Mr. Mueller started to kick Duke. Councilperson Reggie Schmitt asked how much Duke
weighed. Mr. Dripps responded that Duke weighed 89 pounds. Councilperson Reggie Schmitt
stated that his point is that Duke is an 89 pound dog and off his leash twice.
Following comments a vote was taken on the above motion with the following result. Ayes:
Three. Nays: Reggie Schmitt, Hart, Steve Schmitt. Mayor Hurley stated that Animal Control's
actions are then confirmed.
With no further business before the Council, it was moved by Reggie Schmitt, seconded by
Welper that the meeting be adjourned at 4:36 p.m. Ayes: Six. Absent: Cole. Motion carried.
Carol Failor
Deputy City Clerk