Council begins changes to dog ordinance

By Larry Blaskey
The Douglas Dispatch
Published/Last Modified on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 5:29 PM MDT


In a 5-1 vote, the Douglas City Council approved a first reading of the  dog ordinance to increase dog owner accountability and reduce the number of dogs a residence can have without being considered a kennel.


The council voted on the issue on Wednesday, May 13, with Council member Bob Fernandez voting against the the ordinance because he did not believe the city was doing enough to resolve the problem.

“This is a health problem. We need to come up with something better . This is no good, no response,” Fernandez said.

“We need to do something now.”

Police Chief Melis said that the city has always had a vicious dog ordinance, but the change puts more enforcement power in it.

The discussion, which went on for more than a half hour also discussed the need to reduce the number of dogs at any one address to only three.

“The proposed changes are a work in progress in a ‘project’ type endeavor  designed to be modified and adjusted as effectiveness is gauged by Animal Control Administration,” said City Manager Curtis Shook.

According to the ordinance, allowing a dog to run loose is a violation. In the first offense, the owner may be fined $40 to $75 plus restitution; second offense, $75 to $150 plus restitution; and third and subsequent offenses, $150 to $500.

The ordinance will be reviewed again at the next regular meeting of the council.

During the meeting the city also reviewed the recommendation of the Finance Committee for the 2009-10 fiscal year budget.

The city also reviewed plans for a downtown Plaza in the old Phelps Dodge Mercantile building and other locations in close proximity to city hall.

The city also presented certificates of service to Juan Pablo Flores, one year; Victoria Leigh Yarbrough, two years; and Mario Novoa, 21 years.

In other action, the city council:

• Approved a liquor license for Jessica Marcyes of Club Hypnotik, located at 323 G Avenue in Douglas.

• Approved the third reading of ordinance 09-959 repealing a portion of the Municipal Code relating to business licenses  in order to update the code.

• Approved a second reading of Ordinance 09-960 to correct an omission and amending the language pertaining to the effective date of the sanitation fee increase.

• Approved a second reading of ordinance 09-961 authorizing the city to lease to Catholic Community Services a western portion of the Douglas Municipal Airport for use for Douglas Rides.

• Approved Ordinance 09-962 authorizing the city to acquire from Irwin Union Bank property adjacent the the Douglas Municipal Golf Course at La Perilla Estates.

• Approved ordinance 09-964 increasing user fees at the Veterans Memorial Park Swimming Pool and at the Douglas Aquatic Center in order to recover operating costs.

• Approved a first reading of ordinance 09-965 authoring an execution of a lease agreement between the city and RPT, LLC to provide a fixed base operator service at the Douglas Municipal Airport.

• Approved the recommendations concerning the Douglas Police Officers Association request concerning pay increases. Due to current economic challenges, no increases will be available next fiscal year.

• Approved a contract with Health Net for employee health insurance for 2009-10. It was explained that the city had many large medical claims this year, and is offering a higher deductible plan which would offer employees some relief.

• Approved Pandemic flu guidelines set for by emergency services.

The next scheduled meeting of the Douglas City Council is Wednesday, June 10.

 

Comments

    Loves Dogs Also wrote on May 28, 2009 11:10 AM:

    " June 10th is the next council meeting, let see how many dog lovers attend.
    I know I will be there, City is thinking revenue coming from these fines, if a person neglects his dog and knowing lets him run loose, what makes you think that they will reclaim him. (NOT). We need to educate the citizens and our neighboring community of AP on spaying and nuetring. Our culture is a throw away society, I'll just get another. "

    John wrote on May 28, 2009 10:45 AM:

    " It is about time we have a decent Dog Catcher (Frederic)all the others are not worth &**(*&^. "

    Leroy wrote on May 28, 2009 10:41 AM:

    " To here we go again
    You are correct, we the responsible dog (pet) owners will be paying the price for those who are irresponsible, and neglect their pets. Once again we the responsible owners who vacinate, and license our animals, are paying the price, keeping our animals healthy is a priority, we are responsible in having our animals spayed and nueterd, while others let them reproduce like rabbits, and more unwanted and neglected animals are left alone to fend for themselves.
    It is our right to own pets, and with this right comes responsiblity. Frederic Dog Catcher treats his animals with a lot of care, along with the many animals he has encountered. "

    Ana wrote on May 26, 2009 12:37 PM:

    " A couple a weeks ago a little girl got bit by a pitbull at the park. I see to many pits at 8th street park. If your dog pulls you when walking him guess what he is not trained well. I also saw a man slap his dog at the park and the dog was just sitting there, I guess he felt the need to hit his dog. It's ashame that the dog owners who are responsible also have to pay for those who are not. "

    loves dogs wrote on May 26, 2009 7:45 AM:

    " What is the purpose of reducing the number of dogs in a household. If dogs are licensed, as required by law, "fixed" and well taken care of with no disturbance to neighbors, why is the gov't involved??? And, why does the City think increasing loose-dog fees will stop canines running free? These are the same people who don't have ID on their dogs, view them as 'disposable" and will allow animal control to kill them, rather than pay a fee. And why doesn't Douglas concentrate their efforts on spay/neuter and adoptions from the "pound" instead of this nonsense? "

    Stan Tucci wrote on May 21, 2009 7:06 AM:

    " Its about time. This town has too many irresponsible dog owners as it is. All to often I see cats and dogs run over in the street.

    What I would like to see is an ordinance banning owners from chaining up their dogs 24-7.

    Dogs need a yard with shade and water. They don't deserve to be chained up like criminals.

    Their is a big difference between someone who actually loves dogs and someone who loves to watch dogs (no pun intended). "

    Here we go again wrote on May 20, 2009 10:06 PM:

    " What happened now, that I am being told how many dog's I can have on my property? If I have more than 3 dogs, what will happen to my other remaining dogs? Will animal control come to my house and kill them? Why should I, a responsible dog owner, whose dogs are vaccinated and licensed with the city being punished because of the high percentage of irresponsible dog owners in Douglas? Where are our dog catcher's? Will the ordinance apply to cats to? If my dog never get's out, is he still required to be vaccinated and licensed with the city? Why don't we have a vet to perform surgery in Douglas? Bisbee is not just a step away. As usual, instead of spending our dollar's in Douglas, we have to go out of town for dog services. Hey Frederic dog catcher, got your kennel license? Got milk? "

Write a Comment

Comment posters are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. We urge comment writers to treat this as a public forum where manners matter. We encourage a collegial, non-insulting tone. All readers comments must be approved by our staff before posting to the Web site. They review submitted comments periodically during the day for offensive or off-topic content before posting. Be aware, in accordance with the Communications Decency Act and provisions upheld in judicial appeal, that you are responsible for comments posted on this Web site. The Douglas Dispatch is not liable for messages from third parties.

DO NOT POST:
* Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults or threats.
* The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
* Comments unrelated to the story.
* Personal Information (phone numbers, addresses, etc.)

Opinions, advice and all other information expressed in douglasdispatch.com's reader comments represent the individual's own views and not necessarily those of the Douglas Dispatch. The Douglas Dispatch does not endorse and is not responsible for statements, advice or opinions offered by anyone other than authorized Douglas Dispatch spokespersons.

Your thoughtful contribution to the online discussion is appreciated.

(optional)
   









Contact Us

Email the Editor
530 11th Street (85607)
P.O. Drawer H
Douglas, AZ 85608
tel: 520.364.3424
fax: 520.364.6750