CCP 07-12-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 28, 1999 25 therapists. She indicated that these women are moving outside the metro area because they cannot get licensed, With regard to the note on page 4-2, Mayor Probst stated that he agreed that subdivision 3 should read "over two dogs" rather than "up to three." Mr. Fritsinger expressed his belief that the subdivisions makes sense as it was written. He indicated that a residential kennel could have up to three dogs, Mayor Probst asked if the issue of the number of dogs has become a problem within the City. Mr. Fritsinger stated that there is a resident who takes in injured and abused dogs and there are others who are breeding pairs and have more than three dogs that are not licensed. Mayor Probst referred to page 4-5, subdivision 2B, and asked if the word "Administrator" should be removed and have this sentence state, "...upon application to the City, and." Mr. Fritsinger stated that in later chapters there are specific references to individuals that would make certain decisions. Mayor Probst asked Mr. Fritsinger ifhe personally issues the dog licenses and metal tags. Mr. Fritsinger stated that he does not personally do the issuing, this is delegated to another employee. Councilmember Aplikowski suggested the statement read, "...to the Office of the City Administrator..." Councilmember Larson suggested this may need to be looked at by the City Attorney, whether the Code should only identify a specific position within City government when it is absolutely necessary to do so. Otherwise references should be made only generically to the City, Councilmember Larson asked if most people who have pets come in for licensing and then never renew them, or are most people good about renewing them. Mr. Fritsinger stated that the City consistently sends out reminder notices. Councilmember Larson asked if, when dog licenses are renewed, the owners provide rabies certifications. Mr. Fritsinger stated that they do. With regard to page 4-2, subparagraph 5, Councilmember Malone noted that some pet owners purchase radio collars for their dogs and are therefore not physically restrained. He indicated that this situation would not fall under the category of a dog at large. Councilmember Larson stated that on page 4-10 the definition for a howling dog states that it would be deemed a nuisance if the dog is making the noise for at least five minutes with less than a one minute lapse during that five minutes. He indicated that he lived next to a dog that was a habitual barker. It made no difference if there was one or two minutes lapse, as long it was occurring over a long period of time. Mr. Fritsinger stated that this language was based upon court cases in which the City must go out and document what is actually happening, so there is a basis. Councilmember Larson stated that he was not arguing the basis, he was arguing whether the less than one-minute lapse time was appropriate, Mr. Fritsinger stated that he would have to speak to the Animal Control Officer who had recommended this specific language to the City. Councilmember Larson suggested removing the statement "with less than a one minute lapse during that five minutes..."