VERNON -- Township officials once again have failed to come to terms on what to charge in licensing fees for dogs adjudicated to be "potentially dangerous" and in need of special monitoring to ensure they do not pose a continued threat to public safety.

VERNON — The Township Council has once again failed to come to terms on how much to charge in licensing fees for dogs deemed by the state's courts to be "potentially dangerous" and in need of special monitoring to ensure they do not pose a continued threat to public safety.

As a result, a 2-month-old proposal to have the township recoup some of these ongoing monitoring costs by charging a statutorily permitted $700 annual licensing fee — which produced a 2-2 deadlock by members of the council Monday night — won't come up for reconsideration until the council's next scheduled meeting on Aug. 28 at the earliest.

The proposal stems from the case of a township resident whose 2-year-old American Bully attacked a mailman in September 2016 by grabbing and biting off the mailman's pinky finger and tearing the tendon up to his elbow out from his arm.

A municipal judge initially ordered that the dog be put down after declaring it to be "vicious" under state guidelines. However, a plea agreement in March between the owner — who is a Paterson police officer — and the Sussex County Prosecutor's Office spared the dog's life by allowing it to be reclassified from "vicious" to "potentially dangerous," thus enabling it to return home subject to strict and ongoing monitoring.

Township officials later realized they did not have an ordinance on the books to deal with such situations, for which the state allows municipalities to impose up to a $700 surcharge over and above their standard dog license fees — which, in Vernon's case, is $14.

Council President Jean Murphy and Councilman Dan Kadish both voted in favor of introducing the proposed ordinance Monday night so as to have it proceed to a public hearing. Councilwoman Sandra Ooms and Councilman Pat Rizzuto both voted against doing so but did not state a specific reason, though Ooms said she would prefer to cap the fee at $500.

She noted that three out of eight municipalites — Sparta, Hardyston and West Milford — with similar ordinances currently do just that.

Four other municipalities — Stanhope, Green, Hamburg and Denville — charge $700, the maximum allowed by state law. Sandyston charges $1,000, which technically exceeds the maximum but has yet to be challenged.

With or without changes, the proposed ordinance that failed Monday in Vernon would need to be reintroduced at a later date before advancing to a formal public hearing, which the council would then need to advertise and schedule at a subsequent meeting before final passage could occur.

When first introduced June 26, the proposed ordinance passed on a unanimous vote. However, the council postponed taking final action on it July 10 after some members of the public expressed misgivings about it.

Initially, Ooms had requested that any licensing fees collected by the township be specifically set aside for owner education.

Mayor Harry Shortway, however, has since said he was advised by the township attorney that any license fees collected by the township must go specifically toward offsetting the costs of the required monitoring.

Those expenses, according to Shortway, are considerable and exceed the fees the township stands to recoup under the proposed ordinance, which is not breed-specific and would require a court order mandating special conditions for a dog adjudicated by a judge to be "potentially dangerous" before its owner could be assessed the special fee.

In a July 11 memorandum to the council, Shortway wrote that once a dog is determined by court order to be "potentially dangerous," the dog must have a special registration number prominently tattooed on to its body.

The requirements of the law, which were spelled out in the March plea agreement, also call for the owner to erect a 6-foot enclosure for the dog behind a fence and to display clearly visible signage alerting would-be visitors to the dog's presence.

When taken out of its enclosure, the dog must also be muzzled and restrained with a specially approved tether no more than 3 feet long.

Although township officials were not a party to the March plea agreement and were not consulted prior to its implementation, the township is now charged with responsibility for ensuring compliance, which it must do by having its animal control officer conduct monthly inspections at the owner's home. The township must also order special identification tags for the dog that carry an additional cost.

"In other words," wrote Shortway, "the Township will now be minimally incurring a cost for our Animal Control Officer to schedule, drive to/from and inspect this enclosure every month. This now new duty will detract from the Animal Control Officer's many other duties and responsibilities."

Rizzuto, in a phone conversation Wednesday, indicated he voted against the proposed ordinance Monday as a compromise gesture following Ooms' request that the fee be lowered to $500. Ooms, in a separate conversation, indicated she made the request not only because that was the amount charged by other towns but also because there were members of the public who felt $700 was too high.

Shortway, however, has argued that the $700 license fee is necessary to help the township recover the costs of ensuring compliance by an owner who chooses to maintain a "potentially dangerous dog."

"There appears to be a perception that the Township will simply collect the fee with no other obligations; however that is far from the case," he wrote. "The Township now has and will continue to have monthly as well as annual obligations due to the harboring of 'potentially dangerous dogs' in town."

Those costs, he added, will be over and above the initial costs to the township of prosecuting the matter, which involved drafting reports, collecting photos, taking witness statements, processing record requests in connection with the case, and having police officers testify at trial while being taken away from their other duties.

Councilman Dick Wetzel did not attend Monday's council meeting and thus was not on hand to cast a vote for or against it.

One township official, who requested anonymity, expressed bemusement over the latest impasse on the proposal.

"If we were talking about a 2-year-old whose throat had been ripped out instead of a postman who lost a finger, would we even be having this conversation?" he asked.

�

Eric Obernauer can also be contacted on Twitter: @EricObernNJH or by phone at 973-383-1213.

Editor's Note: This article has been updated to add Green Township as one of the municipalities to charge a�$700 fee.