Bloomington approves dog ordinance amendment
By Steve Van Kooten
Bloomington’s Village Board approved Ordinance 2024-02, in reference to dog and other animal ownership at their Feb. 5 meeting. The action came after discussion with the village’s designated law enforcement officer, Matt Small. The ordinance was tabled at the board’s December and January meetings.
In attendance were Robert McLimans, Village President, and Trustees Tim Senn, Dennis Morris, Bob Fox, Chastity Allen and Scott Deantal. Dawn Drew was absent from the meeting.
Small, a deputy with the Grant County Sheriff’s Department, recapped the suggested changes from the Jan. 2 meeting and added a few more to clarify details in the document’s language.
Under the penalties section, Small reminded the board that the verbal and written warnings were taken out because warnings were not specified in village ordinances.
“It doesn’t need to be mandated in any kind of offense,” Small said. He further stated warnings were not penalties but precursors to actions, such as citations, that were listed under the ordinance’s penalties section. Small recommended the removal of the warnings as steps in the penalty process at the January meeting.
“I think that should be back in there,” Senn said. He added that it would be preferable to have the warnings outlined in the ordinance rather than implied because the ordinance referenced the warnings as part of the process. “I think by having it so someone can read it and see that, ‘Oh, we have warnings,’ that there’s a verbal, then a written warning then it gets serious.”
Previously, Small said he didn’t need an ordinance to issue any warnings to people and that their inclusion made them part of the penalties process, which was inaccurate. Senn suggested changing the section’s title could be changed to Penalties and Warnings.
Small said the addition of the warnings to the section would not make a difference in the ordinance’s enforcement: “It’s not going to change how I do things.”
The monetary penalties were set at $50/$100/$200 for the first, second and third and more offenses respectively. Small suggested a change in language to clarify those financial penalties were the forfeiture amount for each offense, instead of the citation amount.
“[Citation] suggests the total they would pay, but that’s actually the forfeiture amount,” Small cstated. He said a $50 dollar forfeiture would result in a citation of approximately $175 after court costs and other fees associated with the offense. “If it gets to a third-plus offense, you’re looking at abatement actions anyway to have the dogs removed.”
Senn took umbrage with the ordinance’s language on abatement actions as well. A line in the document stated, “after a livestock, animal or fowl has been impounded for a period of six days, it shall be disposed of at the direction of the village law enforcement.”
“Now, I take ‘disposed’ to mean killed, and I think it shouldn’t be that way,” Senn said.
Small answered that the ordinance did not specify what happened to animals after they were impounded: “How it actually works is we take it to the pound, and at that point it’s the pound’s problem.”
Allen stated a humane society or shelter would only hold onto animals “for so long.” Small added the “pound” would likely treat the seized pet as any other surrendered or relinquished animal.
“That’s actually a pretty light sentence,” Small said. “I’ve seen ordinances where it said, ‘the law enforcement officer shall then kill the dog,’ which seems harsh.”
McLimans and Small both recommended the line in question be excised from the ordinance.
Dog licenses and permits were changed to all expire on Dec. 31 of each year to allow the Village Board to renew all permits and licenses at the same time rather than several times over the course of the year.
Senn asked if the ordinance would also apply to roosters, which were not listed with the disruptive animal behaviors. Small confirmed roosters and other animals were subject to the ordinance.
In January, Small had recommended the ordinance retain a three or more complaints from persons of “ordinary sensibilities” rather than a single complaint. Small illustrated his point by recounting a jog he took through town one morning when he noticed five to six barking dogs during that time. “If I wanted to be a disgruntled person, I could complain about each of them.”
Small said he would agree with an expansion of time for people to report on an incident from 24 hours to “a few days to a week.”
Small asked that a provision be placed in the ordinance for law enforcement dogs, which included his own canine, to protect a dog in the performance of its duty.
“We’re protected by state statute, but to have it in the ordinance would be nice too,” he said. Small clarified that the ordinance would not protect a law enforcement dog when not on duty.
“If I’m not on duty and my canine bit someone, yeah, I should be liable for that,” he said.
The board passed the ordinance with the inclusion of the warnings to the penalty section and the removal of the line in reference to animal disposal.
Other Business
-Small reported an abandoned vehicle had been moved. After the removal, Small discovered the vehicle had a repossession order; however, he could not locate the vehicle after it was moved.
-Further items from the Officer’s Report included a suspicious person sighting, suspicious vehicle report, a custody dispute and a hit-and-run report near Clare Bank, which Small said was unfounded.
-There were no issues with parking on Canal Street during snowfall.
-Small had encountered issues signing the village up with the Traffic Violation Registration Program, a state program used to enforce citations, and requested the production of two parking ticket booklets from a printer in Lancaster, WI. Small was given approval to submit the cost for the booklets to the Village Clerk.
