HomeMy WebLinkAbout08.16.2004COUNCIL WORK SESSION
August 16, 2004
3:55 p.m.
Council Chambers
Members present: Mayor Hurley, Kincaid, Cole, Greenwood, Clark,
Welper.
chmitt, Gunderson,
Moved by Welper, seconded by Kincaid that the Agenda, as proposed, be approved. Ayes:
Seven. Motion carried.
Councilperson Schmitt reviewed his proposed language changes to the Animal Control
Ordinance as it pertains to restraining animals. Councilperson Schmitt stated after meeting with
the neighborhood and Animal Control, he put language together so that irresponsible pet owners
feel the bite. Councilperson Schmitt stated that he worked with Councilperson Kincaid and
changed some of the wording proposed by Councilperson Clark. The proposed language for
Item B is as follows:
B. It is on the premises of the owner in an unfenced area; wider the control of a
person competent to restrain, control and keep the animal on the premises, with
said person being in public view with the animal; or, restrained by a leash, cord,
chain, or other physical restraining device.
Under Councilperson Schmitt's proposal if an animal is in the front yard, knot restrained and the
owner is not in public view, the owner would be in violation.
Item C proposed by Councilperson Schmitt is as follows:
C. It is off the property of the owner but the animal is restrained by a leash, rope,
cord, chain or restraining device, or is properly restrained within a motor vehicle
or trailer.
Councilperson Schmitt's proposal removes the requirement that the leash, cord, chain or
restraining device be no longer than six feet in length.
Marie Tiller, Animal Control Officer, stated that the owners of dogs in the neighborhood have
been cited and the owner no longer lives in that area. The council put a fine limitation of
$750.00, which means that after a certain number of violation, the fine says at $750.00. Ms.
Tiller suggested that the council give Animal Control the authority to remove the animal for one
year and give the owner one year to prove he/she can take care of the animal.
Randy Herod reported that the number of calls turned in for these area is very, very small, and
these areas are not any worse than any other area in town.
Matt Boyd stated that he has been working with the Common Grounds Neighborhood
Association for about one year. Mr. Boyd stated that apparently there are more calls in the
Neighbors For Life area.
Ms. Tiller stated that the proposed language change will put a lot of the responsibility on the pet
owners, and she agrees that if the pet is off the owner's property it should be required to be on a
leash. Ms. Tiller stated that the ordinance allows them to deem an animal as a dangerous animal,
but in this case, the dog is not dangerous. The city ordinance currently states the owner is
allowed to keep the dangerous animal if it is in a certain area. If the animmal is classified as a
dangerous animal, the owner gets to keep the animal until they appeal. Ms. Tiller stated she
would like the ordinance changed to allow Animal Control to take the dog for seven days.
The resident at 525 Colorado and Vice President of Neighbors For Life Neighborhood
Association, reported that the postal carrier is afraid of dogs. He stated jhe has dog, they are
friendly and don't bite, but he has been cited.
Council Work Session
August 16, 2004
Page 2
Mayor Hurley stated he would like to get this ordinance behind us, and that this ordinance is
probably as good of a middle ground as we can get. Mayor Hurley stated he would like the
council to move the ordinance forward for a decision.
Councilperson Welper stated that regardless of what has happened in the Common Grounds
Neighborhood, he has had people say they support a leash law, and he believes the public is
behind this change.
Councilperson Gunderson suggested that Item G be added so that the Dog Parks are included.
Councilperson Gunderson stated he feels the city is making changes for people who are
irresponsible, and he thinks the post office is trying to justify clustered mailboxes.
Councilperson Gunderson stated we are looking at this ordinance because of the threat by the
post office, but he feels they have another agenda, such as saving money or speeding up service.
Councilperson Gunderson stated there are no stats to justify the concerns of the post office.
Councilperson Gunderson stated he has no problem with the language proposed by
Councilpersons Schmitt and Kincaid. Councilperson Gunderson referenced Iowa Code Section
351.26, which states if the dog does not have a tag, it is the duty of the police officer to shoot the
dog. Councilperson Gunderson stated he hates to give the green light to the police officer to
shoot any dog running loose, but we need to get out to the people they need to keep dogs on their
property or on a leash.
Councilperson Clark stated his original proposal six months ago was to change to "other physical
control." Councilperson Clark stated he will support the proposed ordinance because it is better
than what the city has right now. Councilperson Clark stated he would like the six foot
maximum length in the ordinance. Councilperson Clark stated this is so basic, if you own an
animal you should have it under physical restraint. Councilperson Clark stated we make laws all
the time for people who don't obey, we are not penalizing, we are protecting those masses from
those who do not obey. Councilperson Clark stated we have heard testimony that no one can
control a dog without a restraint if the dog has an idea to do what he wants to do.
Mayor Hurley stated we have to look at the whole community, and this is a stop up to the plate
for those citizens.
Councilperson Gunderson stated he agrees that Item C should have the language requiring a
rope, leash, cord, chain or restraining device no longer than six feet in length or we will be back
in a few months because dog owners will use a long length restraining device.
Moved by Kincaid, seconded by Clark that the requirement of no longer than six feet length for
the restraining device be added to Item C.
Prior to a vote on the above motion, the following comments were heard.
Mayor Hurley stated that there are many commercial leashes available which extend to 25 feet,
and he suggested leaving the requirement of no longer than six feet length out of the ordinance to
see how owners respond.
Councilperson Cole stated she thinks that is an intelligent way out, and can support
Councilperson Schmitt's proposal, but she feels the city is being intrusive on good people.
Councilperson Cole stated she would like to use Councilperson Schmitt's proposal but without
the six foot leash requirement. Councilperson Cole stated she feels as general as we can keep the
ordinance, it is the most important way to go.
Councilperson Kincaid stated that the long leashes allow dogs to do their thing, but a six foot
maximum length would control them.
Councilperson Welper asked how we would enforce the six foot leash requirement.
Councilperson Clark responded that enforcement is on a complaint basis, and this gives Animal
Control a tool if there is a violation.
Mayor Hurley stated he is uncomfortable with the six foot length requirement.
• •
Council Work Session
August 16, 2004
Page 3
Following comments a vote was taken on the above motion with the following result. Ayes:
Seven. Motion carried.
The proposed ordinance will be forwarded to the full council for the Au
meeting.
st 23, 2004 council
With no further business before the council, it was moved by Welper, secoided by Cole that the
meeting be adjourned at 4:30 p.m. Ayes: Seven. Motion carried.
Nancy Eckert
City Clerk