Laserfiche WebLink
<br />w ~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Minutes of Regular Council Meeting <br />Page two <br /> <br />Ap r; I 25, 1977 <br /> <br />Council concurred wIth draft, as presented. <br /> <br />Doc Control Ordinance RevIsions <br />Lyn den re fe rred Coun cJ I to his memo ran dum re Re v I s Ions to Dog <br />Control OrdInance and read the proposed ordinance aloud in Its <br />entirety, inserting the revisIons. <br /> <br />McNlesh noted that the present ordInance provides for pro-ratIng <br />of the fee for the balance of year from date of application; <br />suggested this provision continue for the annual license until the <br />life-tIme license Is In effect. <br /> <br />McNiesh noted that existing license requirement Is for all dogs <br />3 mos. of age and older; proposed ordinance Is 6 mos. <br /> <br />Concern was expressed re City's liabilIty re the dog bite Issues <br />In the proposed ordinance. Lynden said the City could have some <br />liability If It has knowledge of such a dog. <br /> <br />Woodburn questioned the necessity of quarantine by a veterinarian; <br />seems that dog could be quarantined at home and avoid additional <br />expense. <br /> <br />Dr. Irvino Lerner said he feels the proposed ordinance Is unduly <br />restrictive and Is "repulsive" to him, as well as their dog; <br />his dog Is not leashed, but is well trained; feels existing law Is <br />adequate; If new ordInance Is passed, feels it will be done by <br />those who do not like dogs. <br /> <br />Mr. James Ross said he has the same sentiments as expressed by <br />Dr. Lerner. <br /> <br />Mr. (Inaudible). Glenvlew Avenue - The new ordinance Is unduly <br />repressive; If enforced, the present ordinance Is OK. <br /> <br />Mr. Sawver. 1630 Glenvlew Court said he does not understand the <br />need for this ordinance; dog should be able to be free in his own <br />yard; asked why new ordinance is being proposed - if there Is a <br />problem with a certain dog or dogs, contact the owner; does not <br />see the need for a new ordinance. <br /> <br />Sawyer asked the meaning of "Notice to Owner" (Sec. 9.c). Does <br />this mean a phone call, or what? <br /> <br />Expressed the need for a definition of a "vicious" or "ferocious" <br />animal; disagreed with the definition of "at large". Sawyer said <br />his dog comes when called. Is not leashed; dog Is In his yard or <br />out with his children; teels that If there Is a problem. It should <br />not be "ducked" by passage ot a very restrictive ordinance. <br /> <br />Sawyer said he Is also speaking for Mr. Bert Erickson. 1678 <br />Glenvtew Court, and Dr. Bert Wooltrey, 1811 Venus Avenue; both <br />concur with me re this proposed ordinance. <br /> <br />Mayor Crepeau explained that the existing ordinance Is <br />"unenforceable"; this Is the reason we are looking Into an <br />amended ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Les Nordin said he owns land In, Arden Hills; feels that a <br />barking dog can be considered to be a "poor man'S alarm" to deter <br />burg I ars. <br /> <br />Wingert noted that the Intent of the proposed ordinance Is to <br />control the "constantly barking dog"; present ordinance does <br />not provide this control. <br /> <br />Addltlonel comments ware thet there are probably only a dozen <br />dogs causing the problems; we have too many laws already. why <br />make more? ; why not make an e ttort to en torce the present ordt nance? <br /> <br />Nancv Ross - If about 12 dogs are causing the problems, why should <br />the rest of the residents and their pets be penalized by keeping <br />dogs on an 8' chatn. and not al iowlng the dogs to sit on their <br />own doorsteps? <br /> <br />-2- <br />