My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2005_0523
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2005
>
CC_Minutes_2005_0523
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:26:20 AM
Creation date
6/30/2005 4:23:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
5/23/2005
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />Staff's Position regarding C. Ihlan's 3 proposed amendments to the proposed <br />Vicious Animal Ordinance. <br /> <br />1. C. Ihlan's first proposed amendment prescribes situations when an animal <br />would be deemed exempt from the Code requirements respecting <br />Dangerous and Potentially Dangerous Animals. Staff believes the <br />amendment is unnecessary. Under the Code, the Chief is authorized to <br />determine whether an animal is Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous. In <br />fulfilling her duty, the Chief will and must take into account all the <br />circumstances respecting the animal, including but not limited to those <br />described in the proposed amendment. Otherwise, the Chief would not <br />be doing her job under the City Code and the Courts would overturn the <br />Chief's decision as arbitrary and capricious. <br /> <br />2. C. Ihlan's second proposed amendment changes it from mandatory to <br />discretionary that an animal will be destroyed when the animal has <br />already been determined to be Dangerous, has subsequently violated the <br />requirements for Dangerous Animals, has been seized and impounded <br />with Notice to the owners, and then the owners fail to reclaim the animal <br />from impoundment within seven days. Staff believes the amendment <br />makes a clear situation unclear. If the animal gets to this extreme point in <br />the process and the owners fail to reclaim it from impound, the City and <br />its citizens should not be put in a situation where we are paying for <br />additional confinement and impound fees for this Dangerous Animal. <br /> <br />3. C. Ihlan's third proposed amendment would delete all the provisions in <br />the proposed ordinance relating to Potentially Dangerous Animals. Staff <br />believes that in order to protect public safety the Code should define and <br />regulate Potentially Dangerous Animals. It is necessary to define <br />Potentially Dangerous Animals because that phrase is used in state law <br />and the city code; that phrase is part of the definition of Dangerous <br />Animal. See def. subparagraph 3 of a Dangerous Animal, that says a <br />Dangerous Animal is a "potentially dangerous animal" who subsequently <br />bites someone. Hence, the phrase and definition for a "potentially <br />dangerous animal" are important and an integral part of the Code in <br />defining and regulating Dangerous Animals. In addition, depending on <br />the facts of each situation, it may be appropriate for the Chief to confine a <br />Potentially Dangerous Animal and to require the owner to register the <br />animal, chip the animal, and procure insurance for the animal. The Chief <br />would make these important decisions based upon her investigation of <br />the specific Potentially Dangerous Animal situation before her. We have <br />had experience with situations involving potentially dangerous animals <br />who subsequently bite someone and the chip and insurance provisions in <br />the new ordinance would be especially helpful to the subsequent bite <br />victim. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.