Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.d. Animal Control Ordinance - Dangerous Dogs and CatsROSEM0UNTEXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Work Session: July 14, 2010 AGENDA ITEM: Animal Control Ordinance — Dangerous ENDA E ION: Dogs and Cats 1( PREPARED BY: Gary Kalstabakken, Chief of Police A AiENDA NO. 7-b- ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum — City Attorney Ma APPROVED BY: Tietjen RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion ISSUE The Council discussed the City's ordinance regulating potentially dangerous and dangerous dogs at the April Council Work Session. Clarification of options and regulations to consider was requested at that meeting. BACKGROUND The discussion at the April meeting was precipitated by a dog attack. In that attack, three dogs were attacked and two of the dogs eventually died from the attacks. Owners of the attacked dogs expressed concern about the City's regulations and requested that the City consider restrictions similar to those contained in the City of Apple Valley's ordinance. Apple Valley only allows dangerous dogs to be kept in areas of the City zoned for Industrial use. Council sought more information on this topic. City Attorney Mary Tietjen has responded to five (5) questions raised during the discussion. Her memorandum is attached. Further clarification on question #5 in Ms. Tietjen's memorandum is required. Restitution may be ordered in cases in which there are criminal charges and a conviction, guilty plea or other resolution negotiated. It is up to the presiding judge to determine if restitution is appropriate in any specific case. Council also asked for information on other topics. Do we have an eective way to track the history of potentially dangemus and dangerous dogs so that if a resident has multiple incidents over time we can prevent the resident from acquiring another dog? A list of all potentially dangerous and dangerous dogs is maintained. Dangerous dogs must be registered annually and follow up is done to ensure compliance. The CSOs also conduct follow up with the owner's of potentially dangerous dogs to verify that the dog is still owned, licensed and living in the City. While the list only contains information on dogs that are currently within the City and declared either potentially dangerous or dangerous, the documentation on current and past cases is maintained in the police records management system. The master name database of the RMS can be searched to find any information on prior dog complaints on persons. This list is not intended to limit the future ownership of dogs. However, there are provisions within state statute that prohibits dog ownership. These provisions include prohibition based upon violations of dangerous dog registration requirements. Ownership is also prohibited following conviction for specific statutes when a dog attacks a person and kills or causes great or substantial bodily harm and the attack was the result of negligence or an intentional act of the owner. This is covered in MSS 347.542. Is a vet clinic req uired to report dog biter and dangerous dog behavior to the police? No What can be done to educate the public regarding dangerous dog behavior including what it is and how it should be reported? The use of the City's usual communications tools can be utilized for this purpose. Another method to reach a targeted audience is the suggestion addressed in Ms. Tietjen's memo regarding notice provided to neighbors when a dog is declared potentially dangerous or dangerous. It is likely that this approach will result in residents being provided information when they are most interested in the issue. In addition to the questions raised at the Work Session, staff has identified the following issues to consider based upon experience in handling dog bite cases in recent years and reviewing the provisions of Apple Valley's regulations. • Require proof that the dog owner's insurance provider has been notified in writing of the declaration of the potentially dangerous or dangerous dog and that coverage has been issued that specifically insures any personal injuries or other claims resulting from the dog. • The dog owner must immediately comply with all requirements when a dog is declared potentially dangerous or dangerous. Owners must follow requirements during the appeal process. • Clarify that a current resident who owns a potentially dangerous dog must report any new address. Currently, notification is required for dangerous dogs and new residents must report potentially dangerous and dangerous dogs that are owned by the resident. • Consider requiring the dog owner to pay the costs of the appeal process if the designation is upheld. Limit costs to a set amount, e.g. $1000. The intent of the discussion at this Work Session is to receive Council direction on any amendments to the ordinance related to potentially dangerous and dangerous dogs. Once direction is provided the amendments to City Code will be drafted and brought to a City Council meeting at a later date. Cat Regulations — Licensing, At -Large and Impounding During budget discussions this spring a potential service cut to save costs was also identified. By eliminating regulations on cats, it is estimated that saving of approximately $8000 may result. Cats that are wandering at large are currently impounded and approximately 80% of the impounded cats are unclaimed by an owner. Fees associated with the care and sheltering of impounded cats is about 75% of the City's animal care budget. There are roughly 50 cats /kittens impounded annually. In addition, other calls regarding cats are also received but in some cases a nuisance or at -large cat is not captured and impounded. This means the number of complaints about cats received annually is greater than the number of cats impounded and is estimated to be around 75 calls per year. If regulation of cats is removed from the City Code, the intention is to no longer have CSOs and police officers respond to these calls for service. Residents with cat problems will be given advice, e.g. live trap and take to Animal Humane Society, talk to owner if known or contact an animal trapper. If Council directs changes in the City Code regarding potentially dangerous dogs and dangerous dogs, changes related to cats can be implemented at the same time. 2 CHARTERED Mary D. Tietjen 470 US Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337 -9277 telephone (612) 337 -9310 fax mtietjen@kennedy-graven.com http://www.kennedy-graven.com MEMORANDUM To: Gary Kalstabakken, Police Chief From: Mary Tietj en, attorney Date: May 21, 2010 Re: Animal control/dangerous dogs Dwight Johnson recently asked a number of questions related to the City's animal control ordinance. You have asked that I provide responses to the following questions posed by Mr. Johnson: 1. Is there some good case law that will help us determine when to designate a dog as dangerous or potentially dangerous? Response: State statute provides definitions for both dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs: "Dangerous dog" means any dog that has: (1) without provocation, inflicted substantial bodily harm on a human being on public or private property; ( 2) killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner's property; or (3) been found to be potentially dangerous, and after the owner has notice that the dog is potentially dangerous, the dog aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of humans or domestic animals. "Potentially dangerous dog" means any dog that: (1) when unprovoked, inflicts bites on a human or domestic animal on public or private property; (2) when unprovoked, chases or approaches a person, including a person on a bicycle, upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public or private property, other than the dog owner's property, in an apparent attitude of attack; or (3) has a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals. 368681 v 1 MDT RS215 -6 2. There is a concern about how a dangerous dog is maintained during the 14 -day period the owner has to comply and/or appeal the designation. What requirements can we put in place to assure public safety while still maintaining the basic rights of the owner during the initial 14 -day time period? Many cities allow 14 days for a dog owner to appeal a notice that their dog has been declared dangerous or potentially dangerous. This appeal period is consistent with the framework under state statute. The statute, however, doesn't specifically address how the dog is to be maintained or kept during that 14 -day period. Cities have authority to regulate potentially dangerous and dangerous dogs beyond what is provided for in state statute. Therefore, the City could adopt a provision requiring that the dog be kept in a proper enclosure or otherwise quarantined until the appeal has been heard and decided. 3. What are the pros and cons of adopting an Apple Valley type of provision where they only allow a dangerous dog to be maintained in one zoning district? I am not familiar with any other ordinances that contain a provision similar to the one in Apple Valley, which prohibits dangerous dogs on residential property. I think this type of provision is very troublesome. As a practical matter, the only real solutions would be for the owner of a dangerous dog to either maintain some type of separate location or kennel for the dog in another area of the City or euthanize the dog. Relocating the dog, of course, would be a very burdensome requirement. Moreover, state statute contemplates that owners of dangerous dogs must comply with certain requirements (ie, registration of the dog, insurance, proper restraints). If the City were to adopt a significantly more restrictive measure, such the Apple Valley provision, there is a greater likelihood that it will be challenged. 4. It was suggested that our ordinance provide for notice to adjacent residents whenever a dog is declared dangerous in a neighborhood. Comments? Is this notice that the City would provide or notice that the dog owner would provide? If the City is requiring the dog owner to provide notice, the City should provide guidance on the substance of the notice. Staff has suggested, and I agree, that the notice should be clear that the adjacent residents don't have the ability to change the designation of the dog or force its removal from the neighborhood. The City would also need to decide how to enforce this provision and whether there will be a penalty for failing to provide the notice. 5. Does state law provide any method for the City to help with the damages a resident may incur due to a dangerous dog? One resident stated that he had $3,500 in vet bills trying to save his dog that was attacked. Or is this a purely civil issue between the private parties? The state statute does not provide for this type of payment by the City. I think this is potentially a misuse of public funds and should be dealt with between the private parties and their insurers. 368681v1 MDT RS215 -6