Nevada council gives owner final chance under citycode after dog bit multiple people

At its Feb. 24 meeting, the Nevada City Council voted to give a local dog owner a final opportunity to comply with the city's vicious-animal requirements rather than immediately ordering the animal removed from city limits.

The action followed testimony from police and a nearly two-hour hearing in which the council reviewed multiple bite incidents involving the same dog over more than two years and discussed whether the animal should be declared vicious and expelled.

Police Chief Brandes told the council he had reviewed incident reports and was "looking at 5 bites in the last 2 plus years with the same dog." Community service officer Nancy Pritchard had earlier recommended owners not rely on an underground fence and advised muzzling, signage and insurance if the dog remained in the city. Council members discussed liability risks to the city and to residents if further bites occurred.

Owner Cathy Wyckoff, who identified herself as living at 533 Third Street Place, told the council she keeps the dogAnnieon a tie-out or in a fenced area and that she planned to replace a broken back door and build a larger pen. Wyckoff said the dog is staying outside the city until April and that she was "actively looking for another place for her" outside Nevada, adding, "If she's not allowed to come back, if I'm not allowed to try, I'm gonna have to put her down. I got her from the Story County Animal Control when she was 1." Wyckoff said she would comply with measures to prevent further incidents.

Councilmembers weighed two options presented in the hearing: declare the dog vicious and order it removed from city limits, or allow the owner to comply with the provisions repeatedly referenced in the meeting (referred to during discussion as "55 0 8") that include confinement, muzzle, signage and liability insurance, together with spot inspections to verify compliance. Several councilmembers urged that, if the council allowed the owner to continue trying to meet the requirements, the order should include periodic spot checks and clear consequences for noncompliance.

Councilmember Sandy moved that staff work with city attorney Aaron to draft an order implementing the conditions described under the city's vicious-animal requirements; Dane Nielsen seconded. The motion passed. The council instructed staff to draft language that would: list the confinement and safety conditions the owner must meet, require liability insurance and signage, and authorize periodic inspections to verify compliance. The council also directed that the dog not be returned to city limits until the owner receives the order and demonstrates the ability to comply.

Mayor and staff said they would circulate a draft order to the mayor's office, the police chief and the city administrator for final review before issuing it. The council did not set specific time-periods for compliance in the meeting's motion; the draft order will contain any deadlines and inspection schedule.

The hearing included council discussion of prior city cases, liability exposures, and the practical difficulties the owner described in making the home modifications suggested by police. Chief Brandes and Nancy Pritchard recommended strict controls if the dog remained in Nevada, including containment and muzzling. Councilmembers repeatedly emphasized that further bites would likely result in the dog being removed.

The council's action leaves the owner the opportunity to retain the animal only if the forthcoming order documents compliance steps and staff can verify adherence to those steps.