2006_0410_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 4f1Q10& Item No.: 9. .� Department Approval: Manager Approval:� ' f� F�genda Section: � �'��•. Itern Description: Consider an Ordinance Amending Title Five, Section 501.16 of the Roseville City Code Relating to Vicious Animals BACKGROUND To better protect the community from potentially vicious or dangerous animals, proposed is an amendment to City Code Title Five, Section 501,1� as reflected in the attachment to this Request for Council Action—AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE FIVE. SECTION 501.16, VICIOUS ANIMALS. The proposed revision broadens the definition of what the City considers a vicious or dangerous animal and clearly states the owner's responsibility in regulating the animal through proper regulation and registration with the City of an animal that falls under the scope of dangerous animal as defined in the amended ordinance. Staff began talking to the Council about dangerous animals on 2/14/05. We also talked about dangerous animals at the following Council meetings: 3/21/05. 3/28/05, 411$I05 �nd5I23/�5. The Chief inet with Councilmember Ihf�n to talk about dangerous animals on 6/1/05. Here is a summary of the reasons why staff thinks a dangerous animal ordinance is necessary: • Our current ordinance is vague and incomplete. For example, it does not cover the definition of what the City considers a vicious or dangerous animal. • State statutes, while lengthy, still leave some gaps, such as the definition of what constitutes a proper enclosure for a dangerous animal. State statute says only that the structure must be a "proper enclosure"; the proposed city ordinance says the enclosure shall meet "minimum specifications" and goes on to explain what those specifications are. ■ In other respects, our experience with dangerous animals leads us to create regulations that differ from state statute. For example, the proposed ordinance specifies the registration of "potentially dangerous" animals. • The proposed ordinance will specifically spell out what the owner of a potentially dangerous animal must follow to ensure the safety of others. The animal in question may be required to complete obedience classes; when outdoors it must be restrained by chain or leash not to exceed six feet and be under the control of an individual 18 years of age or older, and the owner may be required to provide proof of current vaccinations. These requirements will provide safeguards to individuals who may be passing by or live next to the animal in question. Here is a summary of Council concerns about staffs recommended ordinance, followed by staffs response to each concern: 1. All Council members said they did not want appeals to come to them from persons whose dogs had been determined to be dangerous. So staff amended the ordinance to indicate the party handling the appeals process would be a"decision-maker appointed by the City." 2. One Councilmember said she wanted to know how the ordinance paralleled the state's dangerous dog statute. So staff used different colored fonts to show where we repeated state statute in our ordinance and where we added to or subtracted from the state's dangerous dog statute. (NOTE: staff did not simply want to incorporate state statute by reference since (a) that means citizens must find the state statute themselves, and (b) as indicated above, in some