2005_0613_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

�, �� r �� -�' �� r� � Staff s Position regarding C. Ihlan's 3 proposed amendments to the proposed Vicious Animal Ordinance. 1. C. Ihlan's first proposed amendment prescribes situations when an animal would be deemed exempt from the Code requirements respecting Dangerous and Potentially Dangerous Animals. Staff believes the amendment is unnecessary. Under the Code, the Chief is authorized to determine whether an animal is Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous. In fulfilling her duty, the Chief will and must take into account all the circumstances respecting the animal, including but not limited to those described in the proposed amendment. Otherwise, the Chief would not be doing her job under the City Code and the Courts would overturn the Chief s decision as arbitrary and capricious. 2. C. Ihlan's second proposed amendment changes it from mandatory to discretionary that an animal will be destroyed when the animal has already been determined to be Dangerous, has subsequently violated the requirements for Dangerous Animals, has been seized and impounded with Notice to the owners, and then the owners fail to reclaim the animal from impoundment within seven days. Staff believes the amendment makes a clear situation unclear. If the animal gets to this extreme point in the process and the owners fail to reclaim it from impound, the City and its citizens should not be put in a situation where we are paying for additional confinement and impound fees for this Dangerous Animal. 3. C. Ihlan's third proposed amendment would delete all the provisions in the proposed ordinance relating to Potentially Dangerous Animals. Staff believes that in order to protect public safety the Code should define and regulate Potentially Dangerous Animals. It is necessary to define Potentially Dangerous Animals because that phrase is used in state law and the city code; that phrase is part of the definition of Dangerous Animal. See def. subparagraph 3 of a Dangerous Animal, that says a Dangerous Animal is a"potentially dangerous animal" who subsequently bites someone. Hence, the phrase and definition for a"potentially dangerous animal" are important and an integral part of the Code in defining and regulating Dangerous Animals. In addition, depending on the facts of each situation, it may be appropriate for the Chief to confine a Potentially Dangerous Animal and to require the owner to register the animal, chip the animal, and procure insurance for the animaL The Chief would make these important decisions based upon her investigation of the specific Potentiallv Dan�erous Animal situation before her. We have had experience with situations involving potentially dangerous animals who subsequentiv bite someone and the chip and insurance provisions in the new ordinance would be especially helpful to the subsequent bite victim.