WATERLOO -- A proposed city ordinance will put dogs that bite on a much shorter leash.

Waterloo City Council members reached a consensus during a Monday work session to move forward with new rules governing "potentially dangerous" dogs.

The ordinance, expected to return for adoption next week, would deem a dog "potentially dangerous" if it causes injury to a person or domestic animal or is found running at large and its owner has been cited by Black Hawk Animal Control three or more times within a 12-month period.

While a previous ordinance designed to regular certain breeds, such as pit bull terriers and Rottweilers, was scrapped after drawing controversy, the new ordinance is based on the animal's behavior.

"Our intent is to get this document passed and then tweak it as necessary as we go along," said Councilman Reggie Schmitt, who noted the city's first animal control ordinance was adopted in 1868. "Ordinance number two was 'livestock and dogs at large,' so 140 years later we're still at it."

The proposed ordinance excludes dogs used by law enforcement or incidents where the injured person was trespassing; where the victim was committing or attempting to commit a crime on the dog owner's property; where the victim was abusing, torturing or assaulting the animal without justification; or when a domestic animal that was at large entered the area where the dog was confined.

If a dog is deemed potentially dangerous, its owner would have to register it with the city, pay a $50 registration fee, provide proof of at least $300,000 in liability insurance to cover injuries caused by the dog and be affixed with a permanent registration number. The ordinance would also make it easier to destroy those dogs or ban then from the city if they commit future offenses.

Several council members questioned whether the insurance provision would be onerous. But City Attorney Jim Walsh said the liability amount is low compared to what most homeowners carry on their homeowners policies. Those with renters insurance likely are covered too.

"We're not imposing a large cost on anyone," Walsh said. "They already have this insurance in most cases."

The proof of insurance would only kick in if a dog has been deemed a risk.

Kristy Gardner, co-director of the Cedar Bend Humane Society, which operates animal control services for the city under contract, expected the number of potentially dangerous dogs to be cited under the ordinance in a year at "less than 200 maybe." That is based on some 105 bites in the last year and an equal number of dogs habitually at large citywide.

Resident Nathan Merrill has been attending council members regularly to push for changes in the animal control ordinance since his wife's toy poodle was killed Jan. 8 by a pit bull terrier that broke into their back yard. The poodle's body has never been recovered.

"The last time I saw my dog was when it was having its throat ripped out in the backyard," Merrill told council members. "I would rather have you folks do too much and have to come back than to do too little."

The council is also expecting to tighten up the ordinance related to dogs that have been deemed dangerous.

The proposal would not allow the owner of a dog to keep the animal during the appeal process for a dangerous dog citation, and the owner would be required to post a bond to cover the boarding costs for the animal pending that appeal. Owners choosing to remove a dangerous dog from the city -- rather than destroying it -- would need to post a plan of where it would be taken; dogs returning to the city would be destroyed immediately without appeal.

Contact Tim Jamison at (319) 291-1577 or tim.jamison@wcfcourier.com.