CC WORKSESSION PACKET 08032020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7 does not “limit[] any restrictions that the local jurisdiction[] may place on owners of potentially dangerous or dangerous dogs.” While we are not aware that it has even been considered by a court, presumably this broad grant of local authority would include the ability to ban dangerous dogs altogether. However, while the City’s flat prohibition on dangerous dogs is likely not preempted by the state law, it could be argued that by not creating and enforcing a registration program for dangerous dogs, the City is violating Minn. Stat. § 347.565, which provides that the state dangerous dogs statute “must be enforced by animal control authorities or law enforcement agencies, whether or not these sections have been adopted into local ordinance.” (Emphasis added). Thus we recommend that the City adopt the state statutory scheme in lieu of the flat prohibition, with some clarifications as outlined below. C. Recommended Amendments to Ordinance Given the above considerations, we recommend amending the City ordinance as follows: 1. Adopt the state dangerous dogs statute by reference. Given that the City is required to enforce the state statute whether it adopts it by reference or not, we believe there is value in pointing to this statute so that residents are aware that it applies. In addition to adopting the state law by reference, the Council may want to amend the ordinance to include many or all of the provisions of the state statute into the ordinance. This is not necessary from a legal perspective by may assist residents in understanding the law if they do not need to turn to a different statute book. 2. Repeal the ban on dangerous dogs in § 91.36. The prohibition on dangerous dogs in current § 91.36, while perhaps not preempted by the state law, is somewhat inconsistent with it and other ordinances in the metro area, which allow for the keeping of dangerous dogs subject to strict registration and handling requirements. 3. Clearly specify which city employees can designate a dog as dangerous or potentially dangerous. The state law is unclear on this point, and many of the better city ordinances specify which employees can make each of these designations (e.g. police officers, animal control officers, City Manager), particularly if there is no animal control officer. 4. Repeal current § 91.45. This ordinance providing for confiscation of dangerous dogs is no longer applicable if the prohibition in § 91.36 is repealed, and the state law provides for confiscation of dangerous dogs if the registration and other requirements are not met. 5. Specify the annual fee for registering a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog. Alternatively, the ordinance could authorize the City Manager or another City employee to determine the amount of the fee. 6. Enact registration and other regulations on potentially dangerous dogs, similar to the restrictions in place for dangerous dogs. As discussed above, many cities require potentially dangerous dogs to be registered, sterilized, microchipped, and kept in proper enclosures, the same as dangerous dogs. Some cities only require them to be registered and microchipped. If the Council were to impose these requirements, it should also amend the ordinance to put in place clear notice and hearing provisions for designations of “potentially dangerous” dogs. Our recommended amendments to the ordinance are attached to this Memorandum in redline.