Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press Cleveland council for action as recurring roaming-dog complaints persist
Summary
Residents described repeated incidents of Jensen-owned dogs entering neighbors' yards, cornering a resident and harassing animals. The council discussed enforcement options — fines, citations to justice court, impoundment and county coordination — and agreed to consult the city attorney and explore shared animal-control resources.
Multiple residents asked the Cleveland Town Council on Oct. 9 to take stronger steps to enforce the town’s animal and nuisance ordinances after ongoing incidents involving dogs associated with the Jensen household.
Planning and zoning chair Moe briefed the council on outstanding compliance items and then relayed numerous neighborhood complaints related to the Jensen dogs. Moe said the council had sent at least one compliance letter to a resident (Levi Mullen) on a separate matter and noted the town’s code process for enforcement. Residents described dogs coming into yards, “cornering” a neighbor and snapping at chickens, and they provided video and photo evidence to staff.
Neighbors asked the council to involve legal enforcement. The council discussed options including filing citations through the county/justice court system so deputies can serve papers, attaching fines to water bills, pursuing impoundment (which is required before fines escalate under the town’s enforcement practice) and working with the county attorney. The transcript records a council member noting that fees “only raise if the dog is impounded,” and other members raised the practical problems of limited impound space.
Council members and staff agreed to send the town’s ordinances and the evidence packet to the city attorney for advice on enforcement steps, and to consider inviting affected neighbors to a focused meeting to seek a community resolution. Councilors discussed long-running jurisdictional constraints (the sheriff’s office will report but not enforce city ordinances unless an animal meets the threshold for vicious or dangerous animal statutes) and noted mutual-aid or shared-service options with nearby towns for animal control.
No formal new ordinance changes were adopted at the meeting. The council asked staff to forward evidence to legal counsel and to report back with recommended enforcement actions and potential costs at a future meeting.
