Fond du Lac council adopts ordinance tightening rules on dangerous dogs and nuisances

The Fond du Lac City Council on Feb. 26 adopted Ordinance 3808, a broad amendment to city code addressing alcohol in parks, dangerous dogs, animal bites and related topics, after public comments urging stronger enforcement of dangerous-dog provisions.

The ordinance, introduced by City Attorney Hoffman, adds language clarifying that “nothing in this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting the abatement of a public nuisance by the city or its officials in accordance with the laws of the state of Wisconsin and/or chapter 476 of the code of the city of Fond du Lac,” a change Councilmember Schuessler requested and the attorney said was intended to align the ordinance with other state code references. Hoffman recommended approval and said the revisions, together with state law and other city code sections, address dog-related issues.

The measure’s passage followed public comment from neighborhood residents who described repeated problematic encounters with dogs. Jim Thomas, a resident who said his family’s situation started in August, thanked the council and staff for drafting the changes and urged the city to ensure the new rules are enforced. “We can say all we want on paper, but if there’s no action taken on what we have written down, then it’s pretty much useless,” Thomas said. Peggy Zechek, another resident, described filing a police report and not hearing back, and said she hopes the ordinance will be enforced if similar incidents recur.

Councilmembers who spoke praised the ordinance and the role of residents in prompting the changes. Councilmember Mullen thanked the city attorney and Councilmember Schuessler for adding the nuisance language and said the package represented progress, while others echoed appreciation for the community input. The council then voted to approve the ordinance; the meeting record shows the motion passed unanimously.

Discussion vs. decision: attendees raised enforcement questions during public comment and in council discussion; City Attorney Hoffman and staff said state code and the city’s existing code provide authority for abatement and enforcement, and the ordinance adds clarifying language. The council’s formal action was the adoption of Ordinance 3808; the council did not attach additional directions or a specific enforcement plan in the meeting minutes.

The ordinance amends multiple parts of the city code tied to park rules, animal bites and dangerous-dog provisions and explicitly cross-references state law and chapter 476 of the city code. Residents who testified asked for clarity about which office or department will carry enforcement responsibility; the council discussion acknowledged enforcement is important but did not record a specific assignment of enforcement duties at the meeting.

The council moved on to other items after the vote.