Board of Health - Regular Meeting

Maybe, or the weather. Okay. It's now 07:00. We are going to call the Board of Health meeting to order. I'd like everyone to rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

All right. Thank you, everyone. Roll call and membership. We are expecting Doctor. Volga and Emma Cain, but we do have a quorum, so we're going to continue. I'm 2089. I'm seeking a motion to approve the minutes from the last meeting of February 11. Move to

approve. Second.

Oh, thank you. Are there any changes, comments? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions, I abstain. Public hearings, we have none. Action items 20 six-two 85, approve the environmental health lodging fee schedule as identified in the attached documents. I'm seeking a motion to get it on the table. Move to approve.

Second.

Okay, Doctor. Sievers. And let the record show that Emma Cain is here. Thank you for coming, Emma.

Yeah. So just to expand upon what is in the memo, recently the state had changed the tourist rooming house and other lodging fees. Our reimbursement to the state as an agent program depends on a percentage of the state fee. So with the state fee unknown at the time of budget, we did have to adjust fees in order to back into the approved revenue that was proposed in the 2026 budget. So this work reflects what those fee adjustments were.

So you could see Tore Schrumminghouse, one unit that did not increase very much. But some of these other categories are new. So the two to four, five to nine, ten to nine, those are new categories for us. We don't have anything in those categories. Bed and breakfast, I think we have one license. Steve, is that we have one bed and breakfast license. So the rest of these are reflected upon, Okay, what is it that we currently have in terms of a license load? And what is the number that gets us to that budget neutral proposition?

Okay. Are there any comments or questions? Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Abstentions passes unanimously. Thank you very much. We're on to twenty six-three sixteen, approve to accept the Wisconsin Asthma Program grant award in the amount of $10,000 Can I have a motion to get it on the table?

Move to approve.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you. Doctor. Siepers again.

Yeah, I don't have too much to assert beyond what's in the memo,

but

this will allow us to expand our work with the Area School District, Building for Kids, Parks and Rec, and others to create a campaign to help promote the general public's understanding of air quality indoor and outdoor. Excited opportunity to do that work.

And it's nice when we can get a grant. Are there any comments or questions? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions passes unanimously. Thank you. 20Six-three26, hearing of appeal of a dangerous animal declaration. So we will hold on the motion right now and allow testimony to happen. Attorney Gladstone, would you like to lead us through this? Okay.

And looking at the number you called, this is for alpha, the dog alpha. There's two All dangerous right. So we're here on the appeal of a dangerous animal declaration for a dog known as alpha. I want to briefly explain to the board and others what you can expect the hearing to look like. All people who speak during this hearing must use the microphone. This hearing will be conducted orally, and the chair has ultimate authority as to how this hearing proceeds. My name is Darren Glad. I'm here as legal adviser to the board. Even though there are matters before this, we need to make sure the speakers and microphones are working properly during the hearing. So if there's an issue, please let us know.

All witnesses will be sworn in. Zach. Number. The dog's owner is exercising their right to object to the dangerous animal declaration. This hearing is an opportunity for the animal's owner or owners to present evidence as to why the animal should not be declared dangerous.

First, you'll hear from attorney Berwyn who will present as to why the animal is declared dangerous, including any opening statements. The owner will have an opportunity to ask questions of any witnesses if called. With the chair's permission, board members would also have an opportunity to ask relevant questions of any witnesses. Once attorney Berwyn is finished, the owner or owners will have their opportunity to present evidence as to why the animal should not be declared dangerous, including any opening statement if they choose to make one. Attorney Berwyn would have an opportunity to ask questions of any witnesses.

With the chair's permission, the board members would also have an opportunity to ask relevant questions of the witnesses. The chair can repeat the process as many times as necessary until the chair is satisfied that each party has had a fair opportunity to address evidence introduced by the opposing party. The board will then decide on the appeal. There's three available determinations, the first being whether to uphold the order declaring the animal as dangerous. Another option is to rescind the order, and, the final option is to hold the order while waiving certain requirements.

Generally speaking, the requirements that can be waived are the registration, leash and muzzle requirement, the confinement requirements, the signage requirements, spay and neuter requirements, and the liability insurance requirement. The board is allowed to deliberate its decision in closed session, but will vote in open session. And a written decision will be provided to the owners. With that, I'll turn this over to Chairperson Spears for a chance to any final comments before we begin.

Thank you very much for that concise walk through. I appreciate it. And Attorney Berwyn will go to you so we can expedite it, but I need your number of your microphone.

I have the attorney microphone.

Okay. Thank you.

Kathy, do you want the owners of Alpha to come up to the Sure.

Yes, they can. Thank you very much. And what are your numbers on your

seven and eight.

Thank you so much, and welcome. I know this is not an easy situation for all of us, so we'll try to make this as nice and human as possible for you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you. So Attorney Berwyn.

Thank you, Chair. Going to handle things a bit nontraditionally here, and the reason being is that based upon review of all the information available, there doesn't appear to be any actual material dispute about the facts. The question is more of the interpretation of said facts. So what I've provided to each of you, and I've provided a copy to each of ALFA's owners, is a packet of information that largely comprises the written record of the circumstances here. And I apologize for not having this available more ahead of time based on the timing of everything.

I was not able to complete it until yesterday evening. So the information that you have let me back up. So I will note that it's not my intention, based on the information that we have, to present any testimony at the outset here. Lead CSO Philip Brown is here and present should it become necessary for him to testify, as is the other party involved, to the owner of the victim animal here as well, if that should become necessary. However, I don't believe it will be based on the information that we have and the information contained in the record.

But they are here should that need to happen. The handout contains a few things. First thing the everybody will find are a pair of definitions from

pair of definitions from

fair section three one of the city's code. These are the definitions that we're actually going to be working with today. These are the standard that we're looking at. The question before the Board of Health today is whether Alpha is a dangerous animal. These are the definitions that determine that.

The code provides three clear alternative definitions for what is a dangerous animal. We're going to be focusing on one of them, and only one of them is necessary for an animal to be considered dangerous. These definitions, I want to make it clear, these are not suggestions or guidelines. These are the law. As is the definition of bodily harm provided within the code, The definition of dangerous animal that we're looking at today incorporates that term, specifically an animal when which unprovoked inflicts bodily harm on a person, domestic, pet, or animal on public or private property.

Bodily harm is specifically defined, including bodily injury, but not excuse me. Bodily harm means bodily injury including but not limited to a laceration requiring stitches. And then it goes on. But I pause to emphasize that part because that is what we're dealing with here. Following the code sections that have been provided, the parties or the everybody will find a copy of the investigative reports with certain personal information, identifying information, address information that isn't necessary for today's purposes redacted for the privacy of the parties involved, both the animal owners and the other individual involved.

Contained within that are highlights. The highlights come from me. Those are the portions that I want to direct everybody's attention to. But the full narrative reports are provided for full context. Of particular note from the reports, there are certain facts that I want to direct everybody's attention to.

There are, as noted in the reports, one could say four separate accounts of what happened, both the original versions that were provided to the investigating community service officer, the more detailed account from Ms. Pedranzan that was provided to lead CSO Philip Brown after the fact, as well as the account contained within the appeal document, which I will come back to. There are certain consistencies in all of them, which is part of why I'm highlighting them here instead of providing additional testimony that would frankly be redundant from the parent from the appearance of things. So important consistencies. This incident was precipitated when Ms.

Pedranzan was walking her own dog down the street across from the Wilsons' residence. Ms. Wilson exited her residence with her dogs. They were both leashed. One of her dogs, Zulu, pulled away from Ms. Wilson's control and ran towards Ms. Pedranzan and her dog, Paisley. Zulu and Paisley were barking and or growling at each other as this was occurring. Ms. Wilson chased and attempted to regain control of Zulu while still holding Alpha on the leash.

Ms. Wilson's attempt to regain control of Zulu brought Alpha within what I will call striking distance of Paisley. And while still leashed, Alpha did bite Paisley. Alpha, for at least some period of time, did hold that bite on Paisley. There is ambiguity about the length of time, but neither the length of time nor even the fact of the holding the bite in and of itself is a factor necessary for consideration.

And lastly, Alpha's bite caused a laceration to Paisley which did require stitches to close. It also required a drainage tube inserted to allow for proper healing. Following the investigative reports, you will find additional code sections related to the requirements for harboring a dangerous animal. Those were already referenced by attorney Glad. If there is a desire to exercise discretion on the part of the board, this is where that ability lies.

If it is going to do so, I would urge the board to use that discretion judiciously. Provided that information for two main purposes. First, to specifically draw attention to the contrast between the city's code in that it provides for, in where it provides for discretion and where it does not. The second is to draw attention to the fact that this declaration does not require the dog to be removed from the city. It does not require any kind of action more drastic than that.

The limits of the requirements are what's contained within there. The next item you're going to find will be photographs of the injuries in question. It is fair to say that they're not the most gruesome that have come before this body even in recent memory, but that is not the issue or the question. The issue is framed entirely by that definition of dangerous animal and bodily injury. In those pictures, can clearly see the stitches needed to close the laceration and the drainage tube used to assist in the wound's healing.

Last item is provided is the veterinary bill. I don't actually think that this is relevant for your consideration, but it's referenced by Elfa's owners, so I wanted to include it for reference. And, again, with certain redactions, I will come back and address this in a little bit more specificity momentarily. So that's what's in the packet. The other thing as far as the written record that the body has before it is the written request for appeal.

I do want to address some things in there because I think at this point it's probably better for me to just provide everything that I have and go from there. So I'm going to kind of go through that to some degree here chronologically. Start just by looking at the background information that's provided. While I appreciate that information, it is not relevant to the issue before the board here. The issue, again, is what I have said a couple of times already and will probably say a couple more times again.

It is that definition of dangerous animal. None of that background information impacts that definition of dangerous animal that we're dealing with here today. Regarding the incident summary, again, this is one of the accounts that, in terms of all of the relevant details is consistent with every other account that's provided. We have the other animal, Zulu, running at large accidentally, admittedly. This isn't this isn't a it doesn't appear to be a malicious or intentional thing.

But intentionality is not a requirement in what we're dealing with here. I will make note that the I don't know if this was the intent, but I want to cautious I want to cautiously point this out and put a pin in this. The reference to the animals as puppies is, I think, runs the danger of diminishing the significance of what happened here. I understand that that is a common colloquial term. We all very much refer to our dogs, even in their elder years, as puppies very often.

So I don't describe any deceptive intent to it. But I want to point it out just to avoid the potential for unconscious bias there. I am more troubled by the idea that it's noted, a belief that this attack was provoked, which is kind of the crux of the issue here. They note that there was no protection needed, But I would go further to note that there is no reasonable basis for the dog or anyone else to believe that there was protection needed. The foundation of any provocation defense, either logically or if we look to the state's criminal code, which isn't under the criminal code but I'm looking there for guidance, is the reasonableness of that perception.

And there is no reasonable idea to the idea that somebody walking down the street or a dog walking down the street is a provocative action. Walking down the street is not provocation. Period. And the idea that it is, what are we doing here then? This endeavor is pointless if that's provocation.

They know that they paid for all of the veterinary costs for the animal, and that's commendable. It's the moral thing to do. It's also legally required by Wisconsin statute section 174.02. So I don't want to make that into any bigger deal than it is and it's certainly not relevant to what it is we're here to decide and that's whether or not the animal here is dangerous. We also note that the veterinary the vet classified the laceration as minor.

That's a billing code designation. We're not looking at a billing code designation as overriding or informing the city's code, the definition that's specifically set out in black and white. I understand the impulse or the desire to point that out. I I I don't begrudge them doing that, but it's an apples and oranges comparison. It's just not what it is we're looking at here.

I don't think there's anything of note to point out in the veterinary observation section. Looking at the key facts for consideration, again, it goes to the the billing code thing. I'm not gonna reiterate that. There's a reference to no prong prolonged attack occurring, not part of the definition. It's not relevant.

The event was brief and isolated, not part of the definition, not relevant. Five years without a begras without an aggressive behavior, it's not part of the definition that we're dealing with here. No prior bite incidents. It's not part of the definition. Any animal which, when unprovoked, inflicts bodily harm on a person, domestic pet, or animal on a public or private property. That is the definition. None of this has anything to do with that. There's reference to the safe interaction with dogs at day care, vet visits, walks, family pets. I don't doubt any of that for a second. The issue isn't what the dog can do when the dog's on its best behavior.

The issue is that this dog, on this occasion, without provocation, inflicted bodily injury on somebody else's pet. That's the beginning and the end of it. Stuff in the owner responsibility section. I touched on that already. Those are obligations and expectations.

Positive things, but again, they don't change the applicability of the definition here. Risk of future mitigation. None of this stuff changes none of the stuff they have in there changes whether or not the dog meets the definition of dangerous animal. I know I'm sounding like a broken record. That's somewhat intentional because I want to impress that none of this changes whether or not the dog meets the standard of a dangerous animal.

The request for reconsideration. Again, it's the right to make the request but none of the information they provided changes the information and how it applies to that definition. They note in that request for consideration that the injury is minor. The purposes of the city's code, that's not true. In a colloquial sense, maybe it is.

In a veterinary sense, maybe it is. But for the purposes of our code, which is what we're actually working with, it is just not true. Isolated event, again, is not relevant. And they essentially want the board to rely on the additional safety measures that they have indicated that they will utilize as an explanation for why the dog should not be declared dangerous or why the declaration should be overturned. And while I understand that, and I don't have reason to question their sincerity in wanting to make those efforts, One, as I've said repeatedly, doesn't change the definition of the applicability to it.

But I think in a more practical sense, what it comes down to is asking the board to give up any ability to verify or enforce those safety requirements and asking us to rely on on simple trust. There's no reason that coders should be done. The remainder, again, doesn't directly it doesn't address the standard. So in looking at everything, there really isn't any question whether or not alpha meets the definition of a dangerous animal. And frankly, to entertain that question any longer than it takes to determine the uncontested sequence of events is it's intellectually dishonest.

The real issue that is subject to discretion in this case, if any, is the requirements for is which of the requirements for harboring a dangerous animal will be waived. And all the information that they've provided, perfectly reasonable to consider that in terms of those waiver, potential waivers. That is perfectly reasonable because that is a discretionary question and not a matter of matching the facts to this definition. So to the extent that that's the question and the consideration, what they provided is is relevant and and frankly worthy of consideration. But no matter which of the accounts that are relied on, definition is met.

This isn't a question of whether or not miss Wilson acted intentionally or even carelessly. I don't think anybody's asserting that she did. It's not what this is about. The question is about whether alpha meets the definition of dangerous animal. There's no mental state, standard of care, or any other condition to read into that definition. There are precise considerations set forth in the code. Did Alpha inflict bodily harm on a person or domestic pet? Yes, without a doubt. Was that harm provoked? And we can look to one final section that I'll reference.

Didn't reproduce it here, but it's section three dash one three three. You can look to that for guidance, and that's what I'm referencing with some of the language I'm utilizing here. So was this provoked? Nobody was trespassing in Alpha's yard or home. Nobody was attempting to commit any law violation that protected his owner's property.

Nobody was teasing, torturing, or abusing or assaulting Alpha. He wasn't protecting a human from an unjustified attack or assault. He wasn't provoked. The other dog was walking down the street, and that is not provocation. And if Alpha sees that as provocation, that in and of itself tells us everything we need to know about whether or not Alpha's dangerous.

Those are the questions that we're here to look at. If there's a condition for harboring a dangerous animal that the committee, that board views as appropriate to waive under the circumstances, I'm not gonna begrudge the board that decision.

It's discretionary, and there's there's a level of professional judgment that the code requires you to utilize in that question. But as

far as the question of whether or not this is a dangerous animal,

I'm

there is only one decision that can be reached while following the law and the facts. With that all having been said, I don't have anything else to add at this point. I'm largely, again, relying on the written record and the information as I've summarized it here. But again, should the need arise, lead CSO Philip Brown and the victim in the case are also present should there be the need on rebuttal or for cross examination purposes potentially. Thank you.

Thank you, Attorney Byrne. At this time, I'll ask the Board of Health if anyone has any questions to ask at this point. Okay. None. At this time, then we will offer the chance to the Wilsons to address us and give us your standpoint. Is that correct?

That is correct. And if you're gonna offer testimonial evidence, you know, you call witnesses, they'll be put under oath. But if you're gonna make arguments, like attorney Berwind did, you wouldn't need to be sworn, and you can do it from your seat there.

Thank you, attorney.

Good. Good.

So and if you state your name and address for the record, too. Sure. Thank you.

Logan Wilson, address of 3823 East Ruby Red Drive, Appleton, Wisconsin. So, yeah, we've heard the background about everything that occurred and we don't doubt that it was indeed an attack from Alpha. What we're here to kind of argue is about the unprovoked action. In this case, you know, all the things considered were leash slipped out of hands, sudden chaotic moment, that's what we're kind of focusing on. In a dog's eyes, you know, they don't understand why things are happening.

They just know the situation is stressful. There are dogs barking, people yelling, leashes being pulled. And during all this time is where he felt needed to protect his pack. You know, his brother being in the situation or his owner being in the situation, he doesn't understand what's going on. So that's why we view this as being a provocation in this act.

It wasn't the fact that either dog or any dogs did anything to cause the provocation. It's more the fact that it was a stressful stimulus that was affected on alpha, which would be the definition of provocation, including some form of stimulus. So that's why we're viewing it as a provoked action in this case, and that's kind of where our argument is. Again, we've already heard about Alpha's behavior history. We have the evidence from people that have dealt with him often from friends, and also a letter from our, day care provider that Alpha has been to more than 15 times about how he has not exhibited any sort of aggression towards other dogs or people.

So that's why we're kind of here to argue the fact that he should be declared dangerous. Yes, we accept that this happened. We are sorry for all the pain that has occurred to the owner and their dog. We're going take every action necessary to make sure that he is protected and also the public is protected. At the end of the day, that's why everybody is here. We're here to protect the public of Appleton. We share that same goal. And we feel that, you know, given his history of nonaggressive behavior and the fact that we feel this attack was provoked because of the stressful situation and the stimuluses at hand. So that's why we're arguing the fact that he should not be declared a dangerous Any

questions? Alderson Jones.

Not as much as a question, but I just wanted to get something out there. I have been in this very similar situation. And I understand attorney Berwyn's discussion of was it provoked or was it not provoked and dog behavior, etcetera. However, after the situation occurred in my own life, I did some research on directed redirected aggression or deferred aggression. And so there is the idea that if the dog can't get to what it wants to attack, it will it will go after what's near them.

And so I am hesitant to say that it's unprovoked knowing that situations, it could be very stressful. And so I just kind of want to put that out there of questioning the provoked versus unprovoked.

Thank you very much. I have a question regarding the history of the dog. Have you done did you go through training with the dog?

No, we have not done the official training.

Okay. Just curious about that. Any other questions?

I have a question.

Sure. Mayor.

Is the dog neutered? Yes. Okay. What of the requirements for harboring a dangerous animal do you take issue with?

We've consistently that's louder than I thought it would be. We've consistently registered him with the city and made sure he's vaccinated, so I would ask that we don't need to register him additionally as a dangerous animal every year since we've done it since we moved to Appleton last year. Otherwise, we already have the umbrella policy in place. We already purchased the muzzles. If we could remove dangerous animal signs, that would be great. We've had people over at our house, and he's never shown any kind of aggression. So

I I noticed in the future risk mitigation section of the document you presented us, You noted that the dog will always be secured on a leash when outside the home, which is required. The dog will be jointly exercised private park, so taking those steps. Dog wear a muzzle in public settings. And then you did note that beware of dog signage should be posted at the residence, and then dog under close supervision. So the reason I'm asking is I'm I'm trying to align your future risk mitigation with sections A through G of our code because that's what the board will be looking at because that's really what's at our that's the discretion that the board gets to exercise here this morning is A through G.

So under that, indoor confinement signs. We've addressed F, which is the dog is neutered, liability insurance G, which you've already taken out of policy. So just it sounds like there's an issue with posting signage on the House is a concern you'd ask for our consideration of. But otherwise, it sounds like you're taking the steps already that are required under the code for harboring a dangerous animal. So I just wanted to if there's anything else in those requirements A G, that would help as we take up this appeal and consider the issue.

So it sounds like generally alignment with Sections A G, the steps you've already taken and are willing to continue

to

take.

Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

Anyone else have any questions?

Sure. Can I just clarify? Sure. So going through the requirements, you would like to not have the signage?

Correct. And not have to register him as a dangerous animal every year.

Which is the notification. What the indoor confinement? What about that one?

We're fine with it because we live in an apartment right now. So if we exit our property, they're always leased anyways. The only thing that we would like changed is our ability to have windows open.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. And at this time, I would like to offer the victim the opportunity to address us as well. So if that is agreeable to them

It's entirely up to you.

It's totally up to you if you want to talk about it or not. But I do want to give you that opportunity before we go into deliberation. Okay. You have to come up here. And do you think we need to swear in or not?

Might as well.

Right. And so we're gonna swear you in so everything's by code and record. So

K. If you could, state your full name and spell your last.

Kaylee Pedranzan, p e d r a n z a n.

Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give in this matter shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth shall help you God?

I do. And thank you for coming forward. We appreciate it.

Thank you. So I think that the reading through the packet here, it addresses it well. I guess my only concern not my only concern. My biggest concern was that the owner had regained control of the I don't know what the black dog's name is. Zulu. Zulu. Yeah. She had regained control of Zulu in the leash and was walking away when Alpha slipped his collar and bolted back and attacked Paisley. So the chaos was done. They were walking away, and he decided to come back and attack.

So I I guess that's my biggest issue. It was it was scary. You know, I was afraid for my dog. I was thankful I didn't have my kids there with me to get tangled up in the mess of it. I will say the owner was really great to work with, to deal with after the fact. You know, I I just I had told her I wanted this documented. I didn't realize that this is where everything would lead to. But I hope it was the first and last time, but what if it's not? So

there any questions? Okay. Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony. Attorney Byrne.

I'd just like the opportunity to at least briefly respond the issue was brought up as far as redirected aggression. So I understand the concept. I'm somewhat familiar with it, although admittedly not intimately. I've had similar cause to be concerned about certain things professionally and personally as well. I would urge an extreme degree of caution in considering that in this particular set of circumstances or or, frankly, when dealing with this type of issue at all because, effectively, what we then do is disconnect the act of provocation from the victimization.

So somebody does something to pro to provoke a dog, and then it goes and bites a third party. That doesn't make the dog any less dangerous. The part the person who is the subject or the the victim of the violence in no way provoked that dog. So to disconnect those two things, e even if you could read the code as permitting that, which admittedly think is dubious at best, I think reading it that way dramatically undercuts the entire purpose of providing for that provocation defense. So it's essentially what I wanted to say with that.

Any other questions? Okay. Then 20 28. I'm seeking a motion to have the Board of Health go into the closed session according to Wisconsin Statute 19851A for the purpose of deliberating an appeal of a dangerous animal declaration and then reconvene into open session. Is there a motion for that?

I make a motion.

All So right. So at this time, we ask everyone that is not on the board

Chair, point of order. We need to vote.

Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. Sorry. Early in the morning. All in favor, aye. Aye. Or do we need a roll call?

Aye.

There'll be a roll call.

Okay. Mayor Woodford. Aye. Alderperson Wolf. Aye. Alderperson Jones. Aye. Kathleen Fusch. Aye. Deb Worth? Aye. Emma Cain? Aye. And the chair votes aye. That is the unanimous vote to go into closed session. Thank you very much, mayor Woodford. Appreciate it.

All

All our mics should be on. Everybody green? Okay. So 26, three twenty six. I'm seeking a motion.

I would like to motion to uphold the declaration of dangerous animal with modifications as read by Attorney Darren Glad. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

Okay. So the modifications are to the requirement for confinement. Confinement has three subsections or three paragraphs one, two, and three. Paragraph three, the indoor confinement, the last sentence that says no dangerous animal may be kept in a house or structure when the windows are open, when the screen windows or screen doors are the only obstacle preventing the animal from exiting the structure, that is to be struck from the requirements. Then the requirement for signage is modified to clarify that the signage is only required to be displayed on the apartment unit door while residing in an apartment building.

So more of just modifying it to clarify.

Okay. Are there any comments, questions? Alright. All in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? The uphold of the dangerous animal passes. Thank you very much. And I believe that there will be some things for you to sign. All right. So now we're on

to hold on.

I clicked too soon. We're on to twenty six-three twenty seven, a hearing of appeal of a dangerous animal declaration. I'm seeking I'd like an explanation of why this should be held.

Can address that Can make

a foreign?

Yeah.

Certainly. I will start by noting that there is a written stipulation that I believe Attorney Gladd has and can share with the chair that sets things out in further detail. But the long and short of it is that it appears that we're on the path to an agreement as far as how to resolve this particular matter, specifically related to conditions. So between working on that agreement and allowing the appellants some opportunity to get their affairs in order in terms of meeting some of the remaining agreements or some of the remaining conditions, as well as, frankly, the short turnaround time between when this occurred and today's hearing, There's an agreement between us that it is appropriate to set this out for the next Board of Health meeting. Hopefully by then we'll have a completed written agreement to present.

But that is the explanation for why we're asking this to be held.

Oh, and so my question is, May 13, why should we make it to the next board meeting and then make a decision if we should hold it till May?

Good question. I can answer that. My understanding is the initial intent was to move it to the the next board meeting in April. The owners, my understanding, are not available for that one. And it was agreeable to everyone, I think, on the city side to skip the April and put it on for the May. So it's basically a two month adjournment of the hearing to allow them to work out details. And if that can't be done, then they preserve their right to have the full hearing.

Okay.

Other part of this, I think what I see might be the cleanest way. We have the stipulation. So I think it might be best to have a motion to approve the stipulation if that's what the board wants and then a motion to adjourn the hearing till the May 13 date and do it two separate as opposed to try and capture it all in one. Two things in the stipulation worth noting are that the confinement require requirements that go immediately upon the issuance of the order to essentially modify them to allow the the Mickelsons to have the two dogs present in the enclosed portion of their backyard without being leashed or muzzled until the 05/13/2026 hearing. And then another thing, within thirty days of the order, they're supposed to have the liability insurance in place, giving that we're asking to adjourn the hearing there's an ask to adjourn the hearing till May 13, extending that thirty day time limit up until that May 13 hearing.

So those are the two pretty substantive parts of this of the stipulation that is being asked to be approved.

Okay. So is there a motion to uphold the stipulation or approve the stipulation?

I'll move for the purpose of discussion.

Okay. Is there a second? I'll second. Okay.

Chair? Yes. I understand here that the stipulation would allow them to continue to have the dogs in the backyard without any other mitigation in place. However, I note I've I noticed in the in the statement that the Mickelson submitted, it seems the nature of the incident involved a failure of containment in the same yard. So I'm trying to understand how how we can say, yeah, for two months we're gonna let this roll stipulation agreement that says you can essentially keep doing what you've been doing without modification until this board deliberates on it.

So I'm having a hard time with this because the dog I don't know enough about the situation based on what was submitted. All I've got here in the packet, unless there's supplemental information, which is entirely possible, to give us any indication. Like what steps have been taken here that changed the dynamics of the enclosure? Does anyone know? Is there anyone to speak to that?

Just a couple of panelists.

Is that the one with the picture?

That's correct. Yeah.

Oh, thank you.

So they requested no muzzle during the confinement, but we did not agree. Is that what I'm reading?

The yes. If you look at the appeal, they're asking for no muzzling while I should just pull it up and read.

In the I can we are writing to request permission to allow our dogs to be present in our fully fenced backyard without the requirement of being muzzled or on a leash until a full hearing can be held on May 13. So that was what they requested of us.

Yeah. So if you recall, the the lease leash and muzzling requirements and the confinement requirements don't have a carve out for fenced backyards. It's more the pen and kennel with the floor and ceiling and double walled or double barrier. So what they're asking for is the fenced in backyard to allow them to not have at least a muzzle.

So a a question. This supplemental information with photos indicates that they've made modifications. Has anyone made inspection of the enclosure since the modifications were made so we can make assurance? Have we?

It does not appear so.

Can I

speak real quick?

Have Sure. Come up to the

I won't swear you, but just so you can use the microphone.

Yep. I have not done any investigation So

your name and name and title, please.

Yeah. Sorry about that, everybody. Matt Philliprown, lead community service officer and humane officer for the city of Appleton. In regards to your question, mayor, I have not made any investigations yet on the modifications. I haven't seen the pictures yet, but that's something that we can easily do to make sure that the oh, here they are.

With the chair's permission, that's something that I could do actually today is make my way down there, take a look at the fence to make sure that it is secure enough that no animal from the inside of the fence cannot exit and that the containment issues that led to this have been addressed as in it's completely secure. And then from my standpoint, if it is completely secure, six foot fence backyard with no access from the inside of it out, I would be Okay with these requirements until the next meeting.

If you look, flip the page in the middle, our back fence is a five foot tall chain link fence. And on the prior page, it says it's a four foot tall. So it does not meet the fencing requirements.

Oh, yeah. It just said here the side fences are four feet. What are the I don't have the ordinances in front of me. What is the appropriate measure for containment under harboring a dangerous animal?

Would just like to point

out they also say that they've extended those fences with post extenders and wire fencing. So it would appear that they are taller than the

four and the five feet. Chair? Yes.

Could I make

a suggestion? We have a executed almost fully executed stipulation agreement that's been worked out among the parties. I would like to amend my motion to approve the stipulation agreement to add a condition, which is that our approval of the stipulation agreement is conditional upon a completed inspection by the humane officer of the city of Appleton to ensure that measures have been taken to maintain containment As long as that inspection's made and the containment is found adequate, we would approve the stipulation agreement, which will carry us to the next well, till May when we take this up.

So is there a second to

I'll give that a second.

Okay. And then so my understanding is if they do not meet the requirements, then they would have to leash and muzzle in the backyard?

Yes. Okay. Yes. So the condition the stipulation agreement is conditioned on the humane officer's inspection and approval. If the humane officer does not give that approval, then the requirements of the dangerous animal declaration would stand until we hear it.

Sounds good.

Are there any comments or questions regarding that? Okay. Alderperson?

You could just shoot this committee an email updating us. I

will have ETSO Philip Brown provide me with that information, and then I will update the committee formally.

Excellent. Thank you. Any other and then so we're holding this until the May 13 meeting. It's my understanding that's part of the whole request. So all in favor say that?

Hold on, chair.

I'm sorry. Just from a parliamentary perspective. We need to address the amendment to the original motion.

Okay.

So first, we need to vote on the amendment,

So which would add the

that's piece number one.

So as amend the amendment to have alder person or alder person Officer Filibro go and inspect. She did that. There was a second. So now this is the amendment. So we're voting on the amendment to have that modification to the stipulation. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay. Now that has passed. So now as amended, we are voting on the stipulation.

No, we're voting on the

whole Yep.

Yep, the whole stipulation.

Yep, the stipulation.

And that in the stipulation, they are requesting that this be held until May 13.

I'll move. Do Do you need a motion?

We already had a motion and a second, so we're okay. So all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? It passes. Thank you. Chair,

thank you.

I think just for cleanness, I think there should be a motion to hold this to hold the hearing till the next

Okay.

Till the May.

So I'm seeking a motion to hold the hearing until May 13. Move to hold.

Second. Second.

Okay. We're giving Emma Stone the motion and you the second because she's been trying over there. All in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed? It passes. Thank you very much. All right. So now we're going on to 26 what?

There's copies back. Oh, circulation.

Thank you. Sorry about that.

Chair, I apologize. I have to leave.

I have another meeting.

Oh, convenient. Thank you for your time, Mayor Woodford. We always appreciate your leadership.

Thank you.

All right. So now on to twenty six-one-thirty eight, Age Friendly Appleton Action Plan 2026. Yeah,

given the time and the information nature of this item, I'll just highlight this is four years in the making. So we're excited to have this out. Basically And what this is, is it's an action plan, if you will, for different community activities that are ongoing to meet the sort of needs that folks have laid out in the survey that we had performed about two years ago. And so some of those data are there in the front. You know, just talking about the distribution of age and some of the issues that folks have come up and have noted in terms of concerns about aging in place.

And so I just want to thank everyone that has been involved with the production of this age friendly Appleton report, including Alderperson Jones. Jones. Thank you for those involved. Right. Happy to answer any questions about it.

Any questions? Alderperson

Wolf.

Thank you, Chair. I looked over this last night again, and I really appreciate the breakdowns, the way that it kind of flowed. Was easy to read. And yeah, it's pretty cool stuff as well. Thank you.

Thank you.

And what I like the most is the affordable housing emphasis. I think we really need to look at that as a community because the rates on some of these things and the lack of vouchers utilization is important for our community to help those people get ahead. Any other comments or questions? Okay. 2034, Respiratory Virus Surveillance and Wastewater Report. Doctor. Sievers.

Yeah. So the data just indicate we are seeing moderate activity of influenza and a high activity of RSV COVID-nineteen, which was moderate in the previous, which is the next item

from January 2024. '4.

Sorry. I thought it was done.

So the next item is the am I speaking on the right? So the latest one show the current item shows the latest information. The following item I'll just speak to at this moment. But I'll just say that those it's the same document, just older point in time.

What is it?

So now it's twenty six-two ninety one, New Respiratory Virus Surveillance and Wastewater Report. Or no, we are on the Q8. I'm sorry.

There's two of them.

There's two of them. I'm sorry.

There are two because the info items were held from the last meeting.

Oh, Okay. Yeah. That's probably Okay. And then twenty six-two eighty four, the quarterly report.

So again, I'll take any questions. But really want to sort of highlight the quality improvement work that's been happening in our Weights and Measures program. A lot of opportunities have been taken to streamline and sort of modernize the way we both collect data on the businesses that we're servicing but also through our new invoicing process for our Weights and Measures Consortium partners. I want to call that out as a great work by that team.

Excellent. And I noticed that Cassidy Walsh is elected the East Central Regional Representative for Wisconsin Emergency Management. Congratulations to her. I don't know if everybody knows this, but there's a bill in Madison that is going to assist people for our governor to declare an emergency. And then that will allow businesses and homes to be able to apply for grants to mediate between when they need to have the help and when the insurance will actually pay. So congratulations, Cassidy. That's quite an honor for us.

Yes, it is.

Okay. So anything else? Any other questions? Okay. 2088, Health Department Newsletter. Again, a marvelous job.

Yeah, specific to mention on this one. Just highlighting our rabies program, which has been led by Britt Schuldis. She's done quite a bit of work here in the last three years to improve that with our friends in the Appleton Police Department.

All right. Any comments or questions? Okay. I'm seeking a motion to adjourn.

SPEAKER Motion to adjourn. Second.

All in favor, aye. Aye. Thank you all for your time today.