HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem VIII-A-1/'~ --.-~'~ WASHINGTON
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subiect Ordinance' No. 5829 - City of Auburn - Dangerous Dog Date:
Ordinance April 14, 2004
Department: Legal I Attachr~'ents: Budgei Impact:
I
Ordinance No. 5829
.Admini~'trative Recommendat on:
City Council introduce and adopt Ordinance No. 5829.
Back~r°und Summary:
Over the last few months, there have been several serious attacks by certain dogs within the City of
Auburn. This is not a problem unique to Auburn. However, Auburn City Code provisions currently do not
provide an adequate avenue for addressing dangerous dog attacks. In preparation for this Ordinance, the
City sought samples of Ordinances of other jurisdictions and engaged in with the study and evaluation of
various different ordinances by cities in Washington and elsewhere. It is evident from these Ordinances
that there are several strategies that are generally employed by cities, depending upon their particular
philosophy and the problems with which they are contending. Among the options that are employed in
some cities are breed specific ordinances, and others that are less specific, though still trying to provide a
dangerous dog regulation. State law also includes provisions that can be utilized by cities and can be
expanded upon by cities to address the dangerous dog problems.
The draft ordinance that is currently proposed for adoption has been discussed, evaluated and revised in
various different council committee meetings, as well as individual evaluations by staff and council
members. The proposed ordinance is the product of significant consideration of the options and is the
product of an effort to hold dog owners accountable for the conduct of their dogs without being breed
specific. The regulation imposes a greater responsibility on owners of dogs that are either known to have
dangerous propensities or are of a larger size, so that they could pose a greater risk of danger or harm to
persons or pets. Although one of the earlier alternatives developed in connection with dangerous dog
ordinances for the City of Auburn did include breed specific language, it was decided that this option was
not, at this point, necessary for the City for several reasons, including the fact that many types of dogs,
including those that are more typically identified in breed specific ordinances, can cause injuq! or loss of
Reviewed by C~uncil & Co~;ttees: Revlew;d by Departments &' DiVisions:
[] Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES:~ [] Building [] M&O
[] Airport [] Finance [] Cemetery [] Mayor
[] Hearing Examiner [] Municipaf Serv. [] Finance [] Parks
[] Human Services [] Planning & CD [] Fire [] Planning
[] Park Board []Public Works [] Legal [] Police
[] Planning Comm. [] Other [] Public Works [] Human Resources
Action:
Commillee Approval: []Yes []No
Council Approval: I-lYes I--INo Call for Public Hearing /
Referred to Until / /
Tabled Until I /
Coun'~ilmember: Cerino I Staff: Held
Meeting Date: April 19, 2004t Item Number: VIII.A. 1
AUBURN · THAN YOU IMAGINED
Agenda Subiect Date:
life to persons or pets. However, the breeds that are the most often named are not necessarily
identifiable by the general public. Rather, if a dog falls within size criteria, the ordinance would impose
greater responsibility by virtue of the increased or larger size, rather than breed designations. That also
lends itself to an easier enforcement in that a dog may be weighed or may be viewed and seems to be of
a particular size more easily than identifying a dog in terms of its breeding or genetic composition. The
ordinance provides two key categorizations of dogs. Potentially dangerous dogs and dangerous dogs.
Potentially dangerous dogs are an initia~ threshold which imposes upon owners of dogs falling into that
category, greater responsibility to make sure that the dog does not run loose or attack persons or pets.
Dangerous dogs, however, go further in that not only is there a responsibility on the part of the dog owner
to do what is required for potentially dangerous dogs, there are other options and tools that would come
into play, including micro chipping, muzzle requirements, confinement in secure kennels, etc.
Furthermore, the dangerous dog designation would be the product of a particular "declaration" by the
City, which declaration could be appea~ed and subject to due process considerations. However, unless a
dog is declared to be dangerous, that category would not automatically apply.
That declaration requirement affords the City some flexibility in terms of dogs that might be potentially
dangerous but haven't done anything that rises to the level of the dangerous dog declaration. However,
on the same token, dogs that do cause the concern that prompts dangerous dog declarations could have
that declaration applied to them, therefore providing the intended level of protection to the citizenry from
dogs that have specifically declared dangerous. While there may be several different options that are
available to the City of Auburn, the proposed ordinance seeks to address dangerous dog ordinances
without employing breed specific criteria, and relying on size instead. At the same time, the dangerous
dog ordinance does seek to address responsibility in a way that should alleviate some concerns and
should provide some level of protection that may not currently be available.
A0419-1
O3.4.2.1.2
Page 2 of 2
ORDINANCE NO. 5 8 2 9
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, CREATING A NEW
CHAPTER 6.35 OF THE AUBURN CITY CODE
RELATED TO DANGEROUS DOGS
WHEREAS, there have been several instances within the City of Auburn where
dogs have attacked, injured or damaged persons, pets and/or property; and
WHEREAS, it has been noticed that the breeds of dogs involved in attacks of
persons, pets and/or property tend to be larger; and
WHEREAS, in order to assist the City in responding to the attacks by dogs 'and
by dogs of certain breeds (larger dogs), it is appropriate for the City to review and
evaluate Ordinances of other jurisdictions, studies of dangerous dogs and concerns
relative thereto, including implications of dog size involved therewith; and
WHEREAS, the Ordinances and literature reviewed in connection with this
Ordinance, including studies, reports, news accounts, and similar documents (the
legislative record) do identify concerns about the dangers associated with certain types
of dogs, especially when contrasted with other breeds or sizes; and
WHEREAS, among the ..studies, reports and related documents, information,
even information coming from groups, associations and entities favorable to dogs
indicate that larger dogs are among those most aggressive and most often involved in
attacks, express warnings against allowing such dogs to be able to interact with other
dogs in uncontrolled environments; and
WHEREAS, in light of the other resources, materials, studies and literature
reviewed in connection herewith, a review of the current code provisions of the City's
O~inance No. 5829
April 13, 2004
Page 1
Animal Control Codes revealed a need to enhance the enforcement tools to more
effectively address dangerous dog cases.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. NEW CODE CHAPTER. That a new Chapter 6.35 of the City of
Auburn Code is created to read as follows:
Chapter 6.35
Dangerous Dogs
Sections:
6.35.010
6.35.020
6.35.030
6.35.040
Dangerous dogs and related definitions.
Dangerous dogs -- Notice to owners -- Right of appeal -- Certificate of
registration required -- Surety bond -- Liability insurance -- Restrictions.
Dangerous dogs and potentially dangerous dogs - Requirements for
restraint.
Dangerous dogs -- Confiscation -- Conditions -- Duties of animal
control authority-- Penalties.
6.35.010 Dangerous dogs and related definitions.
Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply
throughout this Chapter.
(1) "Potentially dangerous dog" means any dog that: (a) has a known
propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, to cause injury, or to cause
injury or otherwise to threaten the safety of humans or domestic animals, or (b) is over
thirty (30) pounds in weight.
(2) "Dangerous dog" means any dog that has been declared to be a
"dangerous dog" pursuant to the provisions hereof, by reason of the fact that the dog:
(a) inflicted severe injury on a human being or domestic animal without
provocation on public or private property,
(b) killed a domestic animal without provocation while the dog is off the
owner's property,
(c) is known or should reasonably be known by its owner to have
aggressively bit, attacked, or endangered the safety of humans or domestic animals; or
(d) is a potentially dangerous dog, as defined in this' Chapter, that has been
permitted or allowed to run free and/or unrestrained,
(e) 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
Ordinance No.'5829
April13,2004
Page 2
(f) has, since the effective date of this Ordinance, demonstrated a propensity,
tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, to cause injury, or to cause injury or
otherwise to threaten the safety of humans or domestic animals.
Provided that dogs 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 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 for the purposes of Subsection (2)(d) hereof, there shall
be a rebuttable presumption that a dog has been permitted or allowed to run free if the
dog has been found running free and unrestrained. This presumption may be rebutted
by a showing that, since the effective date of this Ordinance, the dog has not previously
been found running free and unrestrained, and the owner has taken reasonable steps to
prevent the dog from running free and unrestrained.
(2) "Severe injury" means any physical injury that results in broken bones or
disfiguring lacerations requiring multiple sutures or cosmetic surgery.
(3) "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.
(4) "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.
(5) "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 iicensure 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.
(6) "Owner" means any person, firm, corporation, organization, or department
posSessing, harboring, keeping, having an interest in, or having control or custody of an
animal.
6.35.020 Dangerous dogs - Notice to owners -- Right of appeal -- Certificate of
registration required -- Surety bond -- Liability insurance - Restrictions.
(1) 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 of the City Code), 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 serve notice upon the dog owner
in person or by regular and certified mail, return receipt requested.
Ordinance No. 5829
April 13, 2004
Page 3
(2) 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 (6) and (7) of this Section; and an explanation of the owner's rights and of
the proper procedure for appealing a decision finding the dog dangerous.
(3) 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. The notice shall state
the date, time, .and location of the meeting, which must occur prior to expiration of ten
(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 ten-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 ten (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.
(4) 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 Section 1.25.090 of the City Code.
Any such appeal by the owner shalf be perfected by filing a written notice of such
appeal with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) days of the date the owner received the
final determination if the order was delivered in person, or within 'twenty (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 Section 6.35.030 of this Chapter and/or RCW 16.08.090. If
the dog is determined to be dangerous, the owner must pay all costs of confinement
and control.
(5) 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 Sections
6.35.030 and 6.32.040 of the City Code shall not apply to police dogs as defined in
Section 6.32.030 of the City Code and/or RCW 4.24.410.
(6) 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:
(a) A proper enclosure to confine a dangerous dog and the 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;
(b) A surety bond issued by a surety insurer qualified under RCW Chapter
48.28 in a form acceptable to the animal control authority in the sum of at least two
hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000), payable to any person injured by the
dangerous dog; or
Ordinance No. 5829
April 13, 2004
Page 4
(c) A policy of liability insurance, such as homeowner's insurance, issued by
an insurer qualified under Title 48 RCW in the amount of at least two hundred fifty
thousand dollars ($250,000), insuring the owner for any personal injuries inflicted by the
dangerous dog.
(7) 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
thirty days after the owner's receipt of the daogerous dog declaration issued pursuant to
this Chapter or Chapter 16.08 RCW. )
(8) 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 one hundred
dollars ($100) per year for the dangerous dog registration.
6.35.030 Dangerous dogs and potentially 'dangerous dogs -- Requirements for
restraint.
(1) It is unlawful for an owner of a dangerous dog to permit the dog to be
outside the proper enclosure 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.
(2) 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.
(3) 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 Section 6.35.040 hereof.
6.35.040 Dangerous dogs -- Confiscation - Conditions -- Duties of animal control
authority- Penalties.
Any dangerous dog shall be immediately confiscated by the animal control
authority if: (a) the dog is not validly registered under Section 6.35.020 of this Chapter;
(b) the owner does not secure the liability insurance coverage required under said
Section 6.35.020; (c) the dog is not maintained in the proper enclosure; or (d) the dog is
outside of the dwelling of the owner, or outside of the proper enclosure and not under
physical restraint of the 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 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 twenty (20) days. The animal control authority shall
destroy the confiscated dangerous dog in an expeditious and humane manner if any
Ordinance No. 5829
April 13, 2004
Page 5
deficiencies required by this subsection are not corrected within twenty (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 Section 9.02.030 of the City
Code.
Section 2. ADMINISTRATION. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement
such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this
ordinance.
Section 3. SEVERABILITY. If any portion of this Ordinance or its application to
any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance or the
application of the provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected.
Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force
five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication, as provided by law.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
PETER B. LEWIS
MAYOR
Danielte Daskam
City Clerk
Published:
Ordinance No. 5829
April 13, 2004
Page 6