CC 11/20/2017 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CASSELBERRY CITY COMMISSION Minutes of November 20, 2017 — Special Meeting Page 11 of 14 16. Mr. John Casselberry, 700 South Lost Lake Lane, stated the dog which had made the attack on Reese should be checked for licensing and shot records in the event he was diseased, and then he expressed concerns about excessive water bills he had received and the length of time between the reading of the meters and the generation of the monthly bills. 17. Mr. Neil Landgrebe, 451 Lilac Road, expressed concerns about the use of herbicides in the City and provided photographs for the record to City Clerk Donna Gardner depicting areas in the City he felt were areas of concern for pollutants entering the groundwater and ending up in the City's water system. 18. Mr. Hector Vega, 220 Secret Way, expressed concerns about what he perceived to be code violations at the home of the owner of the dog which had attacked Reese, and shared information he had about another attack from the same dog. He stated he shared the safety concerns expressed by all the people who had spoken earlier in the meeting and urged the City to take some sort of action on the issue. No one else came forward. Discussion: A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the issue of the dog attack which resulted in the death of Reese, which included: City's ordinance relating to nuisance properties and options for action by the City; code enforcement process and property owners' due process rights, including in county cases relating to animal control; the City's relinquishment of animal control duties to Seminole County; definition of "dangerous dog" as determined by the State of Florida. City Attorney Reischmann advised against any discussion relating specifically to the property being discussed relating to the dog attack incident, as she was unaware of the status of the County's investigation and wished to avoid creating any problems in terms of due process. Ms. Reischmann further advised the Commission not to make prejudgments or statements relating to the specifics of the dog situation or the nuisance property issue, as the Seminole County Animal Control Board was set up for the purpose of addressing the dog issues and the City's Special Magistrate was appointed to address the nuisance property issues. She added that there were steps that must be taken in both instances, however frustrating that might be in light of the comments and pleas from members of the audience at tonight's meeting. She stated she felt confident that the City Commission had heard the citizens loud and clear and agreed that legislation may be the best course of action, including working with state officials to close some loopholes in the state laws and possibly working with the County Commission to implement stronger penalties and monetary fines for owners of dogs that attack other animals. She did caution that issues relating to the definition of dangerous dog in the statutes had been litigated on several occasions and resulted in any local or county regulations which were stricter being preempted by state law. Mr. Newlon stated that he felt that utilizing the nuisance abatement section of the City's Code would not be the most effective method to obtain the type of relief being sought by the citizens who had expressed their concerns and agreed that the path to reach that objective would be a coordinated effort between the state legislature, local legislators, County Commission, County staff, City staff and the City Attorney, together with a representative group of the concerned citizens, to move forward with some type of legislation which would be achievable and which would provide security and safety to the City's residents. The Commission as a whole expressed support for this type of effort and a desire to move forward quickly to try and effect the necessary changes in the law. They all expressed appreciation for the courage of those who chose to speak their concerns to the City Commission at the meeting.