Mansfield officials again discuss animal control options after dog attacks

MANSFIELD - After several recent dog attacks in the city, Mansfield officials on Tuesday discussed their animal control options, including creating an animal control officer position and contracting with the county for services.

The discussion comes after a 13-year-old boy was attacked by two dogs in May, a 5-year-old girl was bitten in the face by a dog in April and a 3-year-old boy was bitten in the face by a dog this month.

"These are just examples of why it's absolutely necessary for the city to have its own police animal control officer," law director John Spon said during Tuesday's city council meeting. "The purpose is to enforce the laws by having one police officer literally patrol the city streets eight hours a day, looking for dogs that are running free, particularly dogs that could be dangerous, dogs that aren't registered, and then to enforce the laws."

Animal control officer

The animal control officer position would be added to the Mansfield Police Department as part of the "Protection Against Dangerous Animals Law" and would be a trained police officer.

Council members have been discussing adding an animal control officer in the city for several months. In December, they voted against creating two unfunded animal control officer positions for the city, citing Mansfield's financial concerns.

More:Council rejects creating Mansfield animal control officer position

More:Law director wants Mansfield to have animal control officer

More:Mansfield law director calling for animal control officer after pit bull attack

But Spon said Tuesday the police department has up to $466,000 available in its budget or the position, with the expense expected to be less than $100,000, including salary, benefits and a vehicle.

Safety-service director Lori Cope clarified the $466,000 already has been allocated, but a portion could be reallocated for the position.

Spon added an animal control officer could work an eight-hour shift five days a week, saying the position allows for prevention rather than response when it comes to irresponsible owners.

"Unless we have somebody patrolling our streets eight hours a day, we'll never get any prevention prior to the tragedy," he said.

Fourth-ward councilman Butch Jefferson questioned what would happen if a bite were to happen while the officer were off-duty.

Sixth-ward councilwoman Garnetta Pender questioned where dogs would go if they were seized by an animal control officer.

Spon said the city already has a temporary holding pen where dogs could be placed before getting a court order for the Richland County Dog Warden's Office to take the dogs, which he said could be done within an hour.

Council originally planned to vote Tuesday night on a bill that would create an animal control officer position, but the legislation was tabled while members consider another option: a contract with the county.

Contract with the county

Council members also discussed the possibility of reinstating a contract between the city and the Richland County commissioners for animal control enforcement.

A previous $30,000 contract paid for the county to enforce the city's ordinances by funding an additional dog warden officer. But as financial difficulties hit Mansfield, the city contract was eliminated in 2009.

More:County commissioners dispute city's dog warden claims

Cope said Mayor Tim Theaker, who was absent from Tuesday's meeting, is interested in renewing the contract with the county. She said the county commissioners also are interested in discussing the contract.

A previous meeting to discuss the topic between the city and the county was held in April 2017, but no action was taken out of the meeting.

"We've been going through this so-called dialogue with the county for two years," Spon said. "In the meantime, we've got the blood of our children that is being spilled in the streets of Mansfield and nearly killed."

Several council members said Tuesday they want to work with the county toward a solution on animal control.

"We need more of a partnership," said councilman-at-large Cliff Mears. "We need to go across the street, or they need to cross the street and develop a partnership."

Councilman-at-large and safety committee chairman Don Bryant said he will contact the county commissioners to set up a meeting in the next few weeks.

"This is good news that we're gonna move forward in meeting with the commissioners," he said. "I really want that to happen as our next step."

But Bryant, along with fellow safety committee member and second-ward councilman Jeff Rock, said if the meeting doesn't happen, council will move forward with the animal control officer legislation.

Bryant clarified it's not an "either/or" situation, with both options possible.

Under Ohio law, county dog wardens and their deputies are required to "patrol their respective counties and seize and impound on sight all dogs found running at large and all dogs more than three months of age found not wearing a valid registration tag."

Richland County Dog Warden Dave Jordan also said earlier this month he is not required to enforce city ordinances — only state laws.

"We would not cite under the city ordinance... We're not permitted by law to enforce city ordinances unless we have a contract with the city," he said this month.

Third-ward councilman Jon Van Harlingen said Tuesday although the dog warden's office is responsible for three cities, six villages and 19 townships in the county, Mansfield should still receive enforcement, as it makes up 40 percent of the county's population.

"Don't we deserve something? I understand that the county will not come into the city and enforce our codified ordinances. That's fine," he said. "Enforce the Ohio Revised Code."

Recent dog attacks

Pastor James Spencer of Bellville, of Peoples Baptist Church in Mansfield, said his 13-year-old son was attacked in May by two dogs he described as pit bulls. The dogs were deemed dangerous. Spencer said Tuesday night his son is healing well.

In a second incident, Cassidy Coleman of Mansfield, who works at Vasu Communications, said her 5-year-old daughter, Railynn, was bitten in the face by a dog she described as a pit bull. That dog also was deemed dangerous, and was later euthanized.

Mansfield police officers responded to a third attack earlier this month in the 100 block of Bartley Avenue after a dog bit a 3-year-old in the face. Police reported most of the boy's right cheek was missing.

More:Police Calls | Dog bites 3-year-old boy in face

According to the police report, a witness said her neighbor's son lost his grip on the dog, which she described as a pit bull. She said the dog ran to the boy, who was playing with a 6-year-old child, and attacked him. She added the family's dog then started fighting the neighbor dog.

"It was a horrible, horrible scene, and one thing is certain: that if one or both of these dogs had continued to attack this child for another minute, this child would probably be dead," said Spon, who said both dogs were declared vicious, and one dog was euthanized.

The boy's grandmother, Sherrel Shoffstall, told council members Tuesday night the family's dog was protecting the 3-year-old boy, whom the neighbor's dog attacked while the boy was playing in the front yard with Shoffstall's 6-year-old grandson and while his mother was on the front porch.

She said the neighbor dog got out of the house and went for her grandsons.

Shoffstall said the family's dog, a boxer-pit bull mix, was let out of the basement in the house, and the boy's mother told the dog to attack the neighbor dog.

Shoffstall said although she didn't see the incident, she doesn't think the family's dog should have been declared vicious.

"My son's dog didn't bite a human being," she said. "He only bit the other dog... to protect my grandsons."

Shoffstall said her grandson was treated at Nationwide Children's Hospital for two days before returning home. She added he's healing well.

Although the dogs were described as pit bulls in each case, Humane Society of Richland County officials have said in the past a dog's breed cannot be determined by sight, saying it requires a DNA test. Humane society officials have also said a dog's temperament is determined by its owners and its environment, not its breed.

More:Humane society recommends spay/neuter laws

Mansfield eliminated its controversial pit bull ban in November 2017. The city had temporarily lifted the ban in June 2017 after the Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals struck down in April a similar ordinance in Reynoldsburg as unconstitutional.

Spon previously said Mansfield's ordinance, which classified pit bulls and other similar breeds as vicious dogs and banned them from city limits, could no longer be enforced because Mansfield is also under the jurisdiction of the Fifth District.

More:Mansfield eliminates pit bull ban

More:Mansfield eliminates pit bull ban, discusses animal control officer

More:Mansfield could change dog laws after pit bull ban lifted

More:Mansfield temporarily lifts pit bull ban after court ruling

More:Council considers adding stiffer penalties to vicious dog ordinance

Mansfield's elimination of the ban puts the city in line with the state's current law on dangerous and vicious dogs, as the State of Ohio in 2012 changed its legislation from breed-specific about pit bulls, like Mansfield's, to non-breed-specific.

In other action, council approved several demolitions: 115-117 S. Adams St., 135 Buckingham St., 184-186 W. Fourth St., 187 N. Mulberry St., 411 Cline Ave., 520-522 W. Fourth St., 727 Armstrong St. and garages at 178 N. Mulberry St. and on Gray Court.

Council also approved accepting a donation of 30 fishing poles from Vickie, Betty and Bud Schlupp for the city's "Hooked on Fishing, Not on Drugs" program.

ejmills@mansfieldnewsjournal.com

419-521-7205

Twitter: @EmilyMills818