HomeMy WebLinkAbout6244
ORDINANCE NO. 6 2 4 4
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AMENDING
SECTIONS 6.35.010, 6.35.020, 6.35.030, 6.35.035
AND 6.35.040 OF THE AUBURN CITY CODE
RELATING TO DANGEROUS DOGS
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn currently regulates the ownership of
dangerous dogs in Chapter 6.35 of the Auburn City Code; and
WHEREAS, dogs that are declared dangerous in another jurisdiction and
that subsequently are brought into the City of Auburn are only considered to be
"potentially dangerous" under the city's code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that it is in the best interest of the
City that a dog that is declared to be dangerous by another jurisdiction shall also
be considered to be dangerous in the City; and
WHEREAS, the staff costs in administering the code provisions related to
dangerous dogs exceeds the costs currently assessed to the owners of those
~
dogs; and
WHEREAS, based on a review of the provisions of Chapter 6.35 ACC,
Dangerous Dogs, it is appropriate to amend the provisions of the Chapter to
better meet the needs of the City, and to address the City's concerns.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN as follows:
Section 1. Amendment to Citv Code. That Section 6.35.010 of
the Auburn City Code is amended to read as follows:
6.35.010 Dangerous dogs and related definitions.
Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section
apply throughout this chapter:
Ordinance No. 6244
June 3, 2009
Page 1 of 9
A. "Potentially dangerous dog" means any dog that when unprovoked:
1. Inflicts bites on a human or a domestic animal either on public or
private property;
2. Chases or approaches a person upon the streets, sidewalks, or any
public grounds in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack, or any dog
with a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, or to
cause injury or otherwise to threaten the safety of humans or domestic animals;
or
3. Is known or should reasonably have been known by its owner to
have aggressively bitten, attacked, or endangered the safety of humans or
domestic animals.
4. "Potentially dangerous dog" also means any dog that is known by
the owner or should reasonably be known by the owner to be an Akita, American
Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Bull Terrier, Cane Corso, Dogo
Argentino, Dogue de Bordeaux, Kuvasz, Pit Bull Terrier, Presa Canario,
Staffordshire Bull Terrier or Tosa Inu, or breed of any dog, or any mix of dog
breeds which contains as an element of its breeding the breed of Akita, American
Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Bull Terrier, Cane Corso, Dogo
Argentino, Dogue de Bordeaux, Kuvasz, Pit Bull Terrier, Presa Canario,
Staffordshire Bull Terrier or Tosa Inu, as to be identifiable of or partially of such
breed(s), or dogs that have an appearance and physical charac#eristics that are
substantially similar to dogs referred to above.
B. "Dangerous dog" means any dog that has been declared to be a
"dangerous dog" pursuant to the provisionshefee€ of this Chapter, or has been
declared to be a"dangerous dog" pursuant to applicable code provisions by any
other iurisdiction, by reason of the fact that the dog:
1. Killed or inflicted severe injury on a human being without
provocation on public or private property;
2. Killed or inflicted severe injury on a domestic animal without
provocation while the dog is off the owner's property;
3. Has been previously found to be potentially dangerous because of
injury inflicted on a human, the owner having received notice of such and the dog
again aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of humans;
4. Is a potentially dangerous dog, as defined in this chapter, that has
been permitted or allowed to run free and unrestrained off the property of its
owner;
5. Is a potentially dangerous dog, as defined in this chapter, that has
harassed, tormented or caused concern for the safety of persons or domestic
animals; or
6. Has, since the effective date of the ordinance codified in this
chapter, demonstrated a propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack
unprovoked, to cause injury, or otherwise to threaten the safety of humans or
domestic animals.
It is provided, however, that a dog shall not be declared dangerous if the
basis for such declaration was a threat, injury, or damage that was sustained by
a person who, at the time, was committing a willful trespass or other tort upon the
Ordinance No. 6244
June 3, 2009
Page 2 of 9
premises occupied by the owner of the dog, or was tormenting, abusing, or
assaulting the dog or has, in the past, been observed or reported to have
tormented, abused, or assaulted the dog or was committing or attempting to
commit a crime.
It is further provided that a dog shall not be declared dangerous if the
owner of the dog can show that since the incident or action giving rise to the
declaration, the owner has enrolled in and completed the American Kennel
Club's Canine Good Citizen@ (CGC) Program, or a comparable course or
program addressing dog ownership responsibilities offered by a similarly
recognized entity, which alternate course or program and/or entity shall be
approved by the city. However, this proviso (this opportunity to avoid a
dangerous dog declaration) shall not apply where the basis for the declaration
was that the dog killed or inflicted severe injury on a human being without
provocation on public or private property, as set forth in subsection (13)(1) of this
section, or has killed or inflicted severe injury on a domestic animal without
provocation while the dog is off the owner's property, as set forth in subsection
(13)(2) of this section, or has been previously found to be potentially dangerous
because of injury inflicted on a human, the owner having received notice of such
and the dog again aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of
humans, as set forth in subsection (13)(3) of this section. This proviso shall also
not apply to instances where a dangerous dog declaration has been previously
avoided because such training was given to the same owner for this or any other
dog, or to any other person involving this same dog.
It is further provided that for the purposes of subsection (13)(4) of this
section, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a dog has been permitted or
allowed to run free if the dog has been previously found running free and
unrestrained off the property of its owner. This presumption may be rebutted by a
showing that, since the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section, the
dog has not previously been found running free and unrestrained off the property
of its owner, and the owner has taken reasonable steps to prevent the dog from
running free and unrestrained off the property of its owner.
C. "Severe injury" means any physical injury that results in broken
bones or disfiguring lacerations requiring multiple sutures or cosmetic surgery.
D. "Proper enclosure of a dangerous dog" means, while on the
owner's property, a dangerous dog shall be securely confined indoors or in a
securely enclosed and locked pen or structure, suitable to prevent the entry of
young children and designed to prevent the animal from escaping. Such pen or
structure shall have secure sides and a secure top, and-shall also provide
protection from the elements for the dog, and shall either have a concrete floor or
shall have secure fencing material buried not less than one foot below the
surface. Additionally, the animal control authoritv, as defined herein, mav
determine, based on objective and identifiable reasons, that the enclosure is not
adequate or proper, in which case the animal control authority shall communicate
in writinq to the owner of the dangerous doq the deficiencies in the enclosure and
the objective and identifiable reasons that the enclosure is not adequate or
proper, and the owner shall correct the deficiencies identified bv the animal
Ordinance No. 6244
June 3, 2009
Page 3 of 9
control officer before the enclosure shall constitute a proper enclosure. The
owner of the danqerous doq may appeal the animal control authoritv's
determination that the enclosure is not adequate or proper, which appeal shall be
filed in writing not more than ten days from the date the animal control authoritv
communicates his/her determination that the enclosure is not adequate or
proper, and which appeal shall be heard by the police chief or desianee. The
police chief or designee shall decide the appeal based on (1) whether the
objective and identifiable reasons which were the basis of the animal control
authority's determination have been shown, and (2) whether thev reasonably
support the decision that the enclosure is not adequate or proper. It is provided,
however, that reqardless of the materials used, or tvpe and description of the
enclosure and reqardless of the correction of any identified deficiencies, if the
danqerous dog escapes from the enclosure, that escape shall constitute prima
facie evidence that the enclosure was. not a proper enclosure, and shall
constitute prima facie evidence, as well, that the doq owner is not in compliance
with the requirements of this Chapter.
E. "Animal control authority" means the persons and entities
responsible for enforcement of the animal control laws of the city, or such person
as is designated by the mayor, whether acting alone or in concert with other
responsible persons and/or local governmental units.
F. "Animal control officer" means any individual employed, contracted
with, or appointed by the animal control authority for the purpose of aiding in the
enforcement of this chapter or any other law or ordinance relating to the licensure
of animals, control of animals, or seizure and impoundment of animals, and
includes any state or local law enforcement officer or other employee whose
duties in whole or in part include assignments that involve the seizure and
impoundment of any animal.
G. "Owner" means any person, firm, corporation, organization, or
department possessing, harboring, keeping, having an interest in, or having
control or custody of an animal. (Ord. 5996 § 1, 2006; Ord. 5829 § 1, 2004.)
Section 2. Amendment to Citv Code. That Section 6.35.020 of
the Auburn City Code is amended to read`as`follows
6.35.020 Dangerous dogs - Notice to owners - Right of appeal - Certificate
of registration required - Surety bond - Liability insurance - Restrictions.
A. In addition to the enforcement authority with which the animal
control authority has been vested pursuant to state law and/or the King County
Code (adopted by reference pursuant to Chapter 6.32 ACC), the animal control
authority shall be authorized to enforce the provisions of this chapter; provided,
that in connection with the enforcement of the provisions of this chapter to seek
to declare a dog within the city to be dangerous, the animal control authority shall
employ the notification and appeal procedures as defined in this section,
including serving notice upon the dog owner in person or by regular and certified
mail, return receipt requested.
Ordinance No. 6244
June 3, 2009
Page 4 of 9
B. The notice must state: the basis for the proposed action; the
reasons the authority considers the animal dangerous; a statement that the dog
is subject to registration and controls required by this chapter, including a
recitation of the controls in subsections F and G of this section; and an
explanation of the owner's rights and of the proper procedure for appealing a
decision finding the dog dangerous.
C. Prior to the authority issuing its final determination, the authority
shall notify the owner in writing that he or she is entitled to an opportunity to meet
with the authority, at which meeting the owner may give, orally or in writing, any
reasons or information as to why the dog should not be declared dangerous,
including the owner's compliance with the AKC's CGC program, or comparable
course or program provisions as provided herein, if applicable. The owner may
also request a reasonable delay before the final determination is made if the
owner has already enrolled in the AKC's CGC program, or comparable course or
program, if applicable. The notice shall state the date, time, and location of the
meeting, which must occur prior to expiration of 10 calendar days following
delivery of the notice. The owner may propose an alternative meeting date and
time, but such meeting must occur within the 10-day time period set forth in this
section. After such meeting, the authority must issue its final determination, in the
form of a written order, within 10 calendar days. In the event the authority
declares a dog to be dangerous, the order shall include a recital of the authority
for the action, a brief concise statement of the facts that support the
determination, and the signature of the person who made the determination. The
order shall be sent by regular and certified mail, return receipt requested, or
delivered in person to the owner at the owner's last address known to the
authority.
D. The owner may appeal the authority's final determination that the
dog is dangerous to the city's hearing examiner, which appeal shall be in
accordance with the provisions herein and pursuant to the procedures of-AGG
I1.25.89A the citv code. Any such appeal by the owner shall be perfected by filing
a written notice of such appeal with the city clerk within 15 days of the date the
owner received the final determination if the order was delivered in person, or
within 20 days of the date the order was mailed to the owner, by filing a written
notice of appeal with the city clerk. While the appeal is pending, the authority
may order that the dog be confined or controlled in compliance with ACC
6.35.030 and/or RCW 16.08.090. If the dog is determined to be dangerous, the
owner must pay all costs of confinement and control.
E. It is unlawful for an owner to have a dangerous dog in the city
without a certificate of registration issued pursuant to this section. This section
and ACC 6.35.030 and 6.35.040 shall not apply to police dogs as defined in ACC
6.32.030 and/or RCW 4.24.410.
F. The animal control authority shall issue a certificate of registration
to the owner of a dog deemed to be a dangerous dog if the owner presents to the
animal control unit sufficient evidence of:
1. A proper enclosure to confine a dangerous dog, as such enclosure
is defined and described in Paraqraph D of Section 6.35.010 ACC, and the
Ordinance No. 6244
June 3, 2009
Page 5 of 9
posting of the premises with a clearly visible warning sign that there is a
dangerous dog on the property. In addition, the owner shall conspicuously
display a sign with a warning symbol that informs children of the presence of a
dangerous dog;
2. A surety bond issued by a surety insurer qualified under Chapter
48.28 RCW in a form acceptable to the animal control authority in the sum of at
least $250,000, payable to any person injured by the dangerous dog, or such
surety bond that otherwise meets the requirements of RCW 16.08.080; or
3. A policy of liability insurance, such as homeowner's insurance,
issued by an insurer qualified under RCW Title 48 in the amount of at least
$250,000, insuring the owner for any personal injuries inflicted by the dangerous
dog, or such liability insurance that otherwise meets the requirements of RCW
16.08.080.
G. Any dog which is declared to be a"dangerous dog" pursuant to this
chapter or Chapter 16.08 RCW shall also be required to be microchipped by a
veterinarian of the owner's choice, at the owner's expense. This shall be in
addition to the other requirements of this chapter and in addition to the applicable
requirements for licensing as defined within this title, and this procedure must be
accomplished within 30 days after the owner's receipt of the dangerous dog
declaration issued pursuant to this chapter or Chapter 16.08 RCW.
H. In addition to regular dog licensing fees, the owner of a dangerous
dog shall pay to the city a dangerous dog registration fee in the amount of
~ $100.00 -$500 per year for the dangerous dog registration, and shall
comply with the city's dangerous dog registration procedures, including providing
the city with a photograph of the dangerous dog, each year. Such photograph(s)
shall show the dog's coloring and body shape. (Ord. 5996 § 1, 2006; Ord. 5829
§ 1, 2004.)
Section 3. Amendment to Citv Code. That Section 6.35.030 of
the Auburn City Code is amended to read as follows:
I 6.35.030 Dangerous dogs and potentially dangerous dogs -
Requirements for restraint.
A. It is unlawful for an owner of a dangerous dog to permit the dog to
be outside the proper enclosure, as defined and described in Paraqraph D of
Section 6.35.010 ACC, unless the dog is muzzled and restrained by a substantial
chain or leash and under physical restraint of a responsible person. The muzzle
shall be made in a manner that will not cause injury to the dog or interfere with its
vision or respiration but shall prevent it from biting any person or animal.
B. It is unlawful for an owner of a potentially dangerous dog to permit
the dog to be allowed or permitted to run free and unrestrained or off-leash or not
otherwise under physical restraint of a responsible person, unless within a fenced
yard or similar restraint reasonably designed to prevent the dog from running free
and unrestrained.
Ordinance No. 6244
June 3, 2009
Page 6 of 9
C. It is unlawful for an owner of a dangerous dog or a potentially
dangerous dog to permit the dog to be walked outside the proper enclosure by
anyone under the age of 16 years.
D. The owners of dangerous dogs and potentially dangerous dogs are
responsible for taking all reasonable measures to assure that the dogs do not
escape the above restraints, the failure of which responsibility shall constitute a
violation of this chapter, punishable pursuant to ACC 6.35.040. The failure of the
owner of a dangerous dog to comply with the requirements for dangerous dog
registration shall also constitute a violation of this chapter, punishable pursuant to
ACC 6.35.040. (Ord. 5996 § 1, 2006; Ord: 5829 § 1, 2004.)
Section 4. Amendment to Citv Code. That Section 6.35.035 of
the Auburn City Code is amended to read as follows:
6.35.035 Registration of potentially dangerous dogs.
In addition to the dog" licensing requirements, as set forth in Chapter 6.32
ACC, the owners of potentially dangerous dogs, as defined herein, shall file with
the city clerk a notice of potentially dangerous dog according to the form
available from the city clerk. There shall be no fee charged for such potentially
danqerous docLregistration, other than as follows: The owner of a potentially
dangerous dog that was previouslY found to be a potentiallv danqerous dog
because: (1) while unprovoked, it attacked, bit, endangered or iniured a human
or a domestic animal, or (2) it has chased or approached a person upon a street,
sidewalk, or public qrounds in a menacing fashion, shall pay to the citv a fee in
the amount of $100 per vear for the reqistration of the potentially dangerous doq.
Failure to comply with this provision shall constitute a violation of this chapter,
~ punishable as a misdemeanor in accordance with ACC 9.02.83A040. (Ord. 5996
§ 1, 2006.)
Section 5. Amendment to Citv Code. That Section 6.35.040 of
the Auburn City Code is amended to read as follows:
6.35.040 Dangerous dogs - Confiscation - Conditions - Duties of
animal control authority - Penalties.
Any dangerous dog shall be subiect to immediately seRfi6Gated
confiscation by the animal control authority if: (a) the dog is not validly registered
under ACC 6.35.020 or if brought into the City after having been declared
danqerous in any other iurisdiction, has not been validly registered within 10 davs
of its first arrival within the Citv; (b) the owner does not secure the liability
insurance coverage required under said ACC 6.35.020; (c) the dog is not
maintained in the proper enclosure as defined and described in Paragraph D of
I Section 6.35.010 ACC; or (d) the dog is outside of the dwelling of the owner, or
outside of the proper enclosure and not under physical restraint of a responsible
person. The owner must pay the costs of confinement and control. The animal
control authority must serve notice upon the dog owner in person or by regular
and certified mail, return receipt requested, specifying the reason for the
Ordinance No. 6244
June 3, 2009
Page 7 of 9
confiscation of the dangerous dog, that the owner is responsible for payment of
the costs of confinement and control, and that the dog will be destroyed in an
expeditious and humane manner if the deficiencies for which the dog was
confiscated are not corrected within 20 days. The animal control authority shall
destroy the confiscated dangerous dog in an expeditious and humane manner if
any deficiencies required by this section are not corrected within 20 days of
notification. In addition, other than where violations are prosecuted as a felony
pursuant to RCW 16.08.100, any owner who violates the provisions of this
chapter shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable in accordance with
ACC 9.02.030. (Ord. 5996 § 1, 2006; Ord. 5829 § 1, 2004.)
Section 6. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to
implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the
directions of this legislation.
Section 7. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are
declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence,
paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the
application thereof to any person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of
the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons
or circumstances.
Section 8. Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be
in force five days from and after its passage, approval and publication as
provided by law.
INTRODUCED: ,J,~JN 1 5 2009
PASSED: 'iUN,15 2009
APPROVED: '.IUN 15 2009
CITY OF AUBURN
21L - Q/4,i, , 446:4
PET R . L
MAYOR
Ordinance No. 6244
June 3, 2009
Page 8 of 9
ATTEST:
'44~
an' Ile E. Daskam, City Clerk
APR
M :
Daniel l B. Heid, City Attorney
~
Published: z--0~7
Ordinance No. 6244
June 3, 2009
Page 9 of 9
CITY OF ' AliBURN Peter B. Lewis, Mayor
WASHINGTON 25 West Main Street * Auburn WA 98001-4998 * www.auburnwa.gov * 253-931-3000
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
)ss.
COUNTIES OF KING AND PIERCE ) ,
I, Danielle Daskam, the duly appointed, qualified City Clerk of the City of
Auburn, a Municipal Corporation and Code City, situate in the counties of King and
Pierce, State of Washington, certify as follows:
1. The foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of Ordinance No. 6244
(the "Ordinance") duly passed by the Council and approved by the Mayor of the said
City of Auburn, on the 15th day of June, 2009, as that ordinance appears on the
minute book of the City.
2. Ordinance No. 6244 was published as provided by law in the Seattle
Times, a daily newspaper published in the City of Auburn, and of general circulation
therein, on the 18th day of June, 2009.
Witness my hand and the official seal of the City of Auburn, this 29th day of
June, 2009.
Danielle Daskam, City Clerk
City of Auburn
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED