Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Regular Meeting — 04/10/06 <br />DRAFT Minutes - Page 25 <br />dangerous animals and the need to create regulations; and the <br />City's desire to ensure the safety of the public. <br />Chief Sletner reviewed previously addressed Council <br />concerns and staffs response to those concerns, and <br />amendments to the proposed ordinance as applicable, with <br />the exception of suggested language regarding "repeatedly," <br />as the Chief deemed that language to complicate <br />enforcement. <br />Discussion included changes in the revised version compared <br />to previous versions; and language location of "dangerous <br />animal registration" provisions in the ordinance. <br />Klausing moved, Maschka seconded, copying Item (e) <br />related to microchip identification implants from Section B <br />(page 3 of 6) entitled, "Dangerous Animal Registration" <br />Section 2, to Section C entitled, "Regulation of Potentially <br />Dangerous Animals," (page 4 of 6) and identified as Item (1) <br />(d) with similar language. <br />Roll Call <br />Ayes: Ihlan; Kough; Maschka; Pust and Klausing. <br />Nays: None. <br />Councilmernber Kough opined that a Public Hearing was <br />needed prior to final approval; noting that he was aware of <br />several veterinarians and other citizens wanting to make <br />public comment. Councilmember Kough also expressed <br />concern regarding the definition of an aggressive dog. <br />Chief Sletner addressed public safety concerns related to <br />behavior of animals and people using City sidewall�s and <br />wall�ways; noting the definition of dangerous animals in <br />Section 2.b. <br />City Attorney Anderson noted that the ordinance provided <br />that the animal, as outlined in Section A-2-b, had to be off <br />the owner's property. <br />Councilmember Pust noted the language that the animal had <br />to be "in an apparent attitude of attack," not just barl�ing, and <br />