Laserfiche WebLink
Centerville City Council <br />June 9, 2004 <br /> <br />Meeting Minutes <br />Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated the report states that the child was at the <br />park by the pond and the dog bit her. She then said that it is the responsibility of the pet <br />owner to secure the area so that the neighbor kids cannot let the dog out. <br /> <br />Mr. Christopherson indicated he was not told that the dog bit anyone and the CSO said he <br />was an okay dog but was at large and was put back in the yard. <br /> <br />CSO Noren indicated that when he spoke with Mr. Christopherson the day of the incident <br />he did not mention that the neighborhood kids had been tormenting the dog or letting him <br />out. He then said that he advised Mr. Christopherson that the dog had nipped someone <br />and left a red mark on her arm. <br /> <br />CSO Noren indicated that he never told Mr. Christopherson that he had a nice dog and <br />did not put him back in the yard. The dog was in the yard when he arrived but he did <br />have his catch pole out as he was not aware that the dog had been contained. <br /> <br />Council Member Capra asked whether a dog that has bitten and broken the skin is to be <br />treated differently from one that has only caused a red mark. <br /> <br />Chief Heckman indicated that the statute states that any dog with a propensity to frighten <br />or displays aggressive behavior and does not differentiate from biting and not biting. <br /> <br />Council Member Paar asked whether the fact that someone else let the dog out other than <br />the property owner comes into play. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft indicated that would be a separate issue. <br /> <br />Mayor Sweeney indicated that he would like the City to treat these types of instances <br />with consistency as has been done in the two recent cases. <br /> <br />Mr. Christopherson commented that there is no one that saw the girl get bit and asked <br />where the proof is. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft commented that, if Council is inclined to agree with the Chief’s <br />recommendation or indication of potentially dangerous dog there are some findings to <br />base that on. The first is that Council has the report and there was no evidence in the <br />report or provided by the property owner that the victim of the bite was tormenting the <br />animal despite the fact that the property owner has disputed some of the aspects in the <br />report the City has the testimony of the CSO indicating that what is in the report is <br />accurate. He further commented that the property owner’s credibility is at issue because <br />the comments concerning the dog being tormented have only come up after the incident <br />and were not raised right away when the officer was investigating the incident. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft indicated that the information provided to Council is enough to make <br />the finding that the dog does qualify as a potentially dangerous dog and then set the <br />conditions the owner must comply with. <br />Page 8 of 13 <br /> <br />