Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves sweeping animal-control rewrite with new 'dangerous' vs 'potentially dangerous' distinction
Summary
The Fremont City Council approved Ordinance 57-49 on final reading, replacing Chapter 6 of the municipal code to update animal-control rules, add feral-cat provisions and clarify enforcement; council adopted an amendment that distinguishes containment rules for 'dangerous' versus 'potentially dangerous' animals.
The Fremont City Council voted 8–0 to approve Ordinance 57-49, a comprehensive rewrite of Chapter 6 of the Fremont Municipal Code that updates animal-control rules, adds feral-cat provisions and aligns many sections with state law.
Brad Yerger, a member of the multi-year advisory committee that drafted much of the red-lined revision, told the council the package “is a culmination of years worth of work,” saying the effort sought to balance public safety with fair treatment of owners. He noted the draft incorporates language identical to state statutes in several places and reflected committee input from veterinarians, law enforcement and humane-society representatives.
The council discussed finer points of enforcement and accepted an amendment clarifying the difference between a “dangerous” animal (which the amendment says must be securely contained on the owner’s property and properly muzzled/restrained off-property) and a “potentially dangerous” animal (which the amendment requires be leashed and under control when off the owner’s property). Councilman Von Barron introduced the clarification and said the change was intended to recognize differing owner responsibilities depending on the animal’s classification. Councilmembers also discussed new provisions intended to encourage establishment and stewardship of feral-cat colonies and to give community-service officers (CSOs) tools to act where caretakers do not comply.
Kelly Steemer, a CSO who participated in drafting, told council staff were “happy with it” and highlighted that the revised code aims to give officers clearer enforcement options. After discussion, Councilman Jensen moved to approve the second reading as amended and the council voted 8–0 on final reading.
The ordinance includes an appeals commission created during earlier dangerous-dog code updates and will take effect as specified in the ordinance language. The council indicated it expects to monitor implementation and make technical corrections as needed.
