CC_Minutes_2005_0418 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City Council Study Session - 04/18105 Minutes - Page 5 for enclosures depending on type and size of the animal; and his lack of support for the proposed ordinance with its current language. Chief Sletner spoke to Councilmember Kough's concerns regarding people on wheeled conveyance, and the need for animals to be under the control of the owner or family member, and the circumstances of each individual incident taken into consideration for basing decision-making. Mayor Klausing thanked Chief Sletner and staff for taking the initiative to be proactive in pursuing this ordinance; and applauded those efforts. Mayor Klausing expressed his confidence that the ordinance would work, and could be amended as circumstances and experience dictated. Mayor Klausing noted one item of concern, that of the kennel specifications. City Attorney Anderson concurred that further language consideration may be needed to clarify the requirements for enclosing potentially dangerous animals, based on type and size. City Attorney Anderson also addressed the definition of "potentially dangerous animals," noting that state law already contained that definition and would be applicable to dogs in this jurisdiction. Councilmember Ihlan expressed her preference for the ordinance that incorporated the language of state statutes. Councilmember Ihlan further opined her concern regarding enclosure definitions and stipulations; application to dangerous animals, not just dogs; and the appeal process and appropriate party for appeal to avoid the City Council making political decisions. Chief Sletner advised that no one was available on a County level for the appeal process, but that the County contracted out. City Attorney Anderson advised that, the language in the proposed ordinance was an effort to insulate the City from any further administrative procedural costs; and that whenever a municipality makes a decision, there was a court-appeal procedure whether defined by ordinance or not.