Committee votes to take no action on dangerous-dog appeal; case remains open while owner prepares to move

The Legacy Regulatory Committee voted unanimously Thursday to take no action on an appeal of a police-issued dangerous-dog declaration involving a dog named Sebastian, leaving the appeal open while the owner prepares to move the animal out of Portage City.

The committee’s motion — which committee members described during deliberations as “no action” rather than an affirmation of the declaration — passed on a voice vote with Feeney, Paul, Wetzel, Frey and Crowley recorded as voting “aye.” Committee members said the effect is that the matter stays open: if Sebastian leaves the city, no further action is expected; if he remains in Portage City, the chair may place the matter back on an agenda for formal consideration.

The case began with an OPD officer’s report that on March 17 he responded to 555 Winnebago Avenue about a March 14 dog bite. The officer reported that Merlin, a small dog on a lead in its front yard, required stitches after an encounter with two other dogs that had left a neighboring property. The officer said the two dogs were later tracked to 545 Oak Ridge, and that one of those dogs, later identified as Sebastian, had bitten Merlin several times. The officer noted the veterinary records and photographs from the UW Emergency Vet Clinic were attached to the police report.

Cali Krieger, Sebastian’s owner, sent a written statement read into the record describing Sebastian’s history with her family and saying the March incident was out of character. In the statement, Krieger said Sebastian is moving out of Portage City in May and asked the committee not to classify him as a dangerous dog because she does not believe he is dangerous and because of the financial and insurance burdens that classification would impose. The owner of the other dog involved told the officer she only wanted an official record and did not request enforcement action, the officer said.

Committee members repeatedly said their difficulty was not whether a bite occurred — Merlin received stitches — but that no eyewitness account or definitive video established the sequence of events. As one member summarized during deliberations, “we don’t know who did what,” and that uncertainty made it hard to determine whether the encounter was “without provocation,” a phrase used in the ordinance.

City Attorney Jesse Smankowski advised the committee of options, saying they could take no action, hold the file open to see whether the dog leaves the city in May, or delay implementation of any dangerous-dog finding until a later date in May. Committee members chose to make a motion to take no action; the motion passed by unanimous voice vote.

Committee members and staff also noted both households had since registered their dogs with the city, and the victim family had submitted veterinary bills and photos to the city. Committee members said the city’s jurisdiction ends at its boundaries, so a declaration would not automatically carry weight if Sebastian leaves the municipality.

The committee’s decision does not remove the police department’s initial declaration from the record; rather, the committee left the appeal unresolved and available for future action if circumstances change.