CC WORKSESSION PACKET 08032020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5 and did not find a similar prohibition on dangerous dogs as in § 91.36. Below we summarize the approach taken by a handful of neighboring cities. A. Roseville The City of Roseville has essentially written much of the state statute into its ordinances, including the definitions, registration requirement, ownership requirements, and exemptions. However, the Roseville ordinance differs from the state law in a handful of respects. For example, while the state statute does not provide for any regulation of potentially dangerous dogs, the Roseville ordinance requires potentially dangerous dogs to be kept in a proper enclosure and muzzled when outside of the enclosure and requires the owner to microchip the potentially dangerous dog and provide proof of current vaccinations. Additionally, the owner of a potentially dangerous dog may be required to complete animal obedience classes. Roseville City Code § 501.16(C)(1). The Roseville ordinance states that the determination of whether an animal is “dangerous” or “potentially dangerous” shall be made by the Chief of Police or his or her designee, and that an appeal of such a designation must be held before an impartial hearing officer. Roseville City Code § 501.16(E), (G). The hearing officer is “an impartial employee appointed by the City, or an impartial person retained by the City.” Roseville City Code § 501.16(A). B. New Brighton The New Brighton dangerous dog ordinance similarly writes much of the state statute into its ordinance verbatim, but it also adopts the state dangerous dog statute by reference. New Brighton Mun. Code § 6-144(1). The ordinance specifies that a “public safety officer or Animal Control Officer may declare a dog to be dangerous or potentially dangerous.” New Brighton Mun. Code § 6-144(2). Additionally, the ordinance details the procedure for a hearing on a designation before an impartial hearing officer, with the opportunity to appeal to the City Council. New Brighton Mun. Code § 6-144(6), (8). Significantly, the ordinance applies the same registration requirements to potentially dangerous dogs as to dangerous dogs (proper enclosure, annual fee, microchip, warning sign, tags), except for the surety bond/insurance requirement, which only applies to dangerous dogs. New Brighton Mun. Code § 6-146. Additionally, both potentially dangerous dogs and dangerous dogs must be sterilized at the owners expense, and the owner must notify the city upon the death or transfer of the dog. New Brighton Mun. Code § 6-147. C. Edina The Edina ordinance adopts the state statute by reference and provides a handful of additional clarifying provisions. Edina Mun. Code § 8-298. First, the ordinance provides that the animal control officer has authority to declare a dog to be potentially dangerous, and may require that such dogs “be confined or restrained when on the owner’s property and restrained and muzzled when not on the owner’s property.” Edina Mun. Code § 8-299. Second, the ordinance provides that the Police Chief has authority to designate a dangerous dog, which may be appealed to the city council, and specifies the annual registration fee for a dangerous dog is $100. Edina Mun. Code § 8-300. Third, the ordinance provides that an appeal must be filed within 10 days of the designation (whether it is a “potentially dangerous” or “dangerous” designation), and the council must hear the appeal within 30 days. Edina Mun. Code § 8-301. D. St. Louis Park The St. Louis Park dangerous dog ordinance generally mirrors the state statute, but does not expressly adopt it by reference and uses slightly different language in some cases. The ordinance specifies that an Animal Control Officer designates dangerous dogs, and it sets