2006_0410_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

instances the ordinance adds to and subtracts from state law so some repetition was unavoidable.) 3. One Council member said she wanted the ordinance to apply only to dogs, like the state statute. Staff believes that other animals, including domestic pets other than dogs, can and have exhibited the same aggressive behaviors that warrant confinement, or in some circumstances destroying, the animal. So we have not restricted the proposed ordinance to just dogs. Two Council members said they thought the definition of dangerous animal was too broad, and that it could include behaviors that are common in dogs and other animals. Staff has not modified the definition because we think it does describe unacceptable animal behavior. For example, while many animals may bark, barking alone does not define a dangerous animal; the animal must exhibit the following behavior: �a� Wthout provocation, inflicts substantial bodily harm on a human being while on public or private property; �p� Kills a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner's property; or �� Has been found to be potentially dangerous and aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of humans or domestic animals. PROPOSED ACTION Approve the amendments to Title Five, Section 501.16 of the Roseville City Code as stated in the attachment to this RCA; thereby allowing for the registration and regulation of animals that fall under the definition of vicious or dangerous animals as stated in the attachment. Approve the Ordinance Summary for publication in the Roseville Review, the City's legal newspaper FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the revisions and amendments to City Code Title Five. Section 501,r� COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adoption of an ordinance that amends Title Five, Section 501.16 of the Roseville City Code relating to vicious animals; and Approve the Ordinance Summary for publication in the Roseville Review, the City's legal newspaper.