Most of the debate centered around the definition of "worry."

The Fillmore City Council is mulling revisions to the city’s nuisance animal ordinance. Council members discussed changes to the existing ordinance at Tuesday’s regular meeting.

City Attorney Richard Waddingham explained the proposed changes to council members. He said any revised ordinance adopted by the council would supersede any other rules regarding nuisance animals.

Most of the debate centered around the definition of “worry.”

Under existing ordinance, dog owners can be cited, their dog impounded or forced to leave the city, and, in the worst case, their dog destroyed if the animal is deemed “vicious.”

But based on the city’s proposed definition of “worry,” animal owners could face similar sanctions simply over the dog’s potential to be vicious, which a judge would need to decide.

According to the proposed ordinance, the definition of worry is “To harass or intimidate by barking or barring of teeth, growling, biting, shaking or tearing with teeth, or approaching any person or domestic animal in an apparent attitude of attack, or any aggressive behavior that would cause a reasonable person to feel they were in danger of immediate physical attack.”

Council members were concerned the definition could be too far reaching and that animals that exhibit this sort of behavior aren’t always a danger to a person.

The city already has an ordinance that deals with vicious dogs, or animals that bite people.

But, as Waddingham explained—he cited an upcoming trial in a case of a dog scaring people—“you don’t want to wait for the bite.”

“And yet if you do nothing and they get away and chase kids and bite them, then it becomes a problem. That’s a tough one,” he added.

Council members shared personal anecdotes and examples from their own experiences where an animal could fit the description of “worry,” but in actuality was being harmless.

Council member Jeffrey Mitchell, after sharing one such story, said, “This is a really, really hard decision.”

Council member Ian Adams asked, “Are we putting too much definition into worry?”

At one point during the discussion, Mitchell asked members of the audience to tell the council what they think about the proposed ordinance.

Dan Wardle, who identified himself as a concerned citizen, said the onus is all on the dog owner and whether the animal is on the owner’s property or has gotten loose. Owners can already face citations under existing ordinance for allowing their animal to roam freely.

“The dog has to be on the property. If the dog is at large, then it’s a violation of the code,” he said, before sharing some examples from his own experiences dealing with dogs. He admitted the dilemma “is a hard one” for the council to decide.

The council eventually tabled the item until a future meeting. Council members had not had time to study the proposed revisions to the nuisance animal ordinance by Tuesday’s meeting, some said, and decided to spend more time on the subject.

In other council news, Mayor Mike Holt said that city employees, starting next year, would no longer receive across the board raises. He said the new process would require employees to be evaluated on their job performance in order to receive a pay raise.

Council member Adams urged the council at its next meeting to decide how to pursue developing a general plan. He discussed Delta City Council’s recent decision to hire a Brigham Young University professor and students to create that community’s general plan. Adams said he thinks that might be an opportunity for Fillmore to do the same.

The council also discussed the ongoing Justice Court renovation work, a new hangar for the airport, as well as seeking an understanding with Utah Department of Transportation on whether that agency is responsible for fixing a drainage problem underneath a local roadway.