CC 06-27-1977 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of Regular Council Meeting Page two June 27, 1977 . to prove whether dog is "under control" (existing ordinance); pollee department does not have method 0 f catch I ng a dog "at large"; transportation of dog to pound, when caught, is difficult In a squad car (especially when Interrupted for other pollee duties). Councl! noted that If the Arden Hi lis ordinance is Identical to that of either Shorevlew or New Brighton, Arden HI I Is could join with either City for dog patro I. Wingert noted that New Brighton reports a positIve response from most residents of New Brighton; object of the ordinance is to enable City to eliminate the dog nuisances. J. Ross noted that If a dog catcher Is permitted to enter a person's yard and seize a dog, we are all "losing something we have In these United States"; laws should not be passed recklessly; no person should be frightened by roving bands of dogs, but everybody should not be punished because of a minority of violators. Hanson spoke against the proposed ordinance: a poor way to make a law just because It Is easier to enforce; not sure that present ordinance cannot be enforced. Mr. Ross has said It all: most onerous part Is to pick up a well-behaved animal on his own property; Incomprehensible that surrounding communities can pass such an ordinance; up to the citizens to report offending citIzens: feels we should stay with the existing ordinance and ask If other communities will work with us on that basis. Crichton said that "running at large" Is difficult to determine, but agreed that we probably have not tried hard enough to enforce the existing ordinance. Milton Sawyer, 1630 Glenvlew Court - said he recognizes there are some problems; Mr. Hanson has covered his feelings and his considerations very well: should not be yard littering etc. but Section 7 Is like trying to drive a tack with a sledge hammer; a poor law: let's post all streets at 3 m.p.h., then we won't have any accIdents: let's enforce the present ordinance; citizens make formal or Informal complaint when appropriate; Section 7 Is not workable. Woodburn proposed a compromise: . A Community Service Officer for Arden Hil Is, over which the City would have more control than If under a joint program with another city: officer could patrol for approximately 20 hours per week, which was anticipated If patrolled by the New Brighton patrol, and could also do other community service projects: I. property watch of homes whl Ie resident Is out of town 2. evening patrol for dogs and property watch, as wel I as during day time hours. 3. operation i.D. could be encouraged for al I residents by this officer. 4. could talk to residents re dog ordinance requirements; Issue a warning ticket, If necessary, which may be sufficient. Crichton noted that the City would need a vehicle foO" this officer, a cost factor: noted fhat the proposed ordinance Includes other changes such as life-time licensing, rabies shots, clean-up requirements, c()ntrol of howling and barking dogs etc., which are not covered In the existing ordinance. Bob TaQtow, 1737 Crystal Aven~ - speaking as a resident and as Chairman of th. Public Safety Committee, said that the key to the ordinance Is enforcement: a patrol service for Arden Hills will be expensive; coul.d start with a contract service; from the standpoint of safety, suggested that City should not walt until an accident or unfortunate Incident takes place before the ordinance I.s enforced; unfortunate that many times nothing Is done until there Is a human cry for something to be done after the fact. -2-