| To: |
Melinda Reed, Interim City Manager |
|
| From: |
Thomas J. Jodoin, City Attorney |
|
| Subject: |
Consider first passage of an ordinance establishing the City's Animal Control Regulations by Adopting Chapter 2 of Title 5 of the Helena City Code and setting a public hearing for July 13, 2020. |
|
|
Present Situation:
|
Chapter 2 of Title 5 of the Helena City Code currently contains the various duties and responsibilities of dog (animal) owners in the City, and also includes various prohibitions such as keeping a nuisance dog. Further, the chapter outlines a process for declaring dogs potentially dangerous or dangerous, depending on the severity of the actions of the dog.
The existing ordinance is, in many instances, redundant and conflicting, and it creates an inefficient mix of civil and criminal enforcement processes. Substantively there are three major concerns:
1. Presently if a dog bites or attacks another animal or human the only offense that can be cited is “nuisance animal” under Section 5-2-15, HCC, ostensibly because the dog has caused an “annoyance” to the person or animal by biting or attacking them. “Nuisance animal” is primarily oriented towards the prohibition of prolonged barking. Because there is no specific violation for a dog that bites or attacks another animal or human, we have to rely on the “nuisance animal” provision for criminal enforcement and restitution.
2. There is also a civil “designation” and impoundment process where a dog is designated either “potentially dangerous” or “dangerous,” depending on the severity of the incident and prior history of the dog. When a dog acts in a manner that results in the dog being designated “dangerous,” the dog is seized by the animal control officer and impounded at the Lewis and Clark Humane Society shelter. The owner is cited for the applicable concomitant offenses of “nuisance animal,” failure to have the dog on a leash, failure to have proof of rabies vaccination, and/or no city dog license. Before the dangerous dog is released to the owner, the owner must (1) obtain a dangerous dog license from the City, (2) provide proof of liability insurance covering attacks by the dangerous dog, and (3) have a secure enclosure for the dangerous dog to be kept in, or keep the dangerous dog muzzled and on a leash when not in a secure enclosure.
Because there is no authority for the municipal court to decide whether the owner should be allowed to keep the dangerous dog under the civil dangerous dog designation we have had to wait until conviction of the underlying criminal “nuisance animal” citation. This process is incredibly inefficient, and the shelter incurs significant costs and other risks in boarding the dangerous dog often for several months until the dog owner is convicted. (See the attached spreadsheet.) This proposed ordinance would create a process whereby the City can petition the Helena Municipal Court to order the relinquishment of a dog independent of any criminal prosecution. Thus, the City would not need to wait several months for a conviction in order to adjudicate the ownership of the dog while the shelter incurs costs that can reach thousands of dollars.
3. Finally, in terms of the “nuisance animal” portion of the City Code for barking dogs, the language is amended to incorporate the long-standing policy of the City Attorney’s office with regard to prosecution of owners who keep a nuisance barking dog. A copy of the barking dog log that must be submitted to my office for consideration of prosecution is attached.
|
|
|
Background Information:
|
Comprehensive rewrite of the City’s animal control regulations as follows:
• “Potentially Dangerous Dog and Dangerous Dog” designation and appeal process.
• Relinquishment of dangerous dogs for failure to comply severed from criminal process.
• Increase insurance requirements for keeping of dangerous dogs from $50,000 to $100,000.
• Delineate specific prohibited behavior for animals and owners:
o Specific offense for a dog that charges in a menacing fashion.
o Specific offense for a dog that causes injury to a human or domesticated animal.
o Codify objective criteria for barking dogs.
o Animal at-large
o Removal of excreta on public property
o Removal of excreta on private property weekly.
o Failing to keep dog on a leash (except within designated off-leash areas).
• Create consistency with Lewis and Clark County Board of Health rabies requirements.
|
|
|
Proposal/Objective:
|
Comprehensive rewrite of the City’s animal control regulations as follows:
• “Potentially Dangerous Dog and Dangerous Dog” designation and appeal process.
• Relinquishment of dangerous dogs for failure to comply severed from criminal process.
• Increase insurance requirements for keeping of dangerous dogs from $50,000 to $100,000.
• Delineate specific prohibited behavior for animals and owners:
o Specific offense for a dog that charges in a menacing fashion.
o Specific offense for a dog that causes injury to a human or domesticated animal.
o Codify objective criteria for barking dogs.
o Animal at-large
o Removal of excreta on public property
o Removal of excreta on private property weekly.
o Failing to keep dog on a leash (except within designated off-leash areas).
• Create consistency with Lewis and Clark County Board of Health rabies requirements.
|
|
|
Advantage:
|
Eliminate redundancy and the inefficient mix of civil and criminal enforcement processes problematic in the current ordinance. Comprehensive rewrite of the City’s animal control regulations as follows:
• “Potentially Dangerous Dog and Dangerous Dog” designation and appeal process.
• Relinquishment of dangerous dogs for failure to comply severed from criminal process.
• Increase insurance requirements for keeping of dangerous dogs from $50,000 to $100,000.
• Delineate specific prohibited behavior for animals and owners:
o Specific offense for a dog that charges in a menacing fashion.
o Specific offense for a dog that causes injury to a human or domesticated animal.
o Codify objective criteria for barking dogs.
o Animal at-large
o Removal of excreta on public property
o Removal of excreta on private property weekly.
o Failing to keep dog on a leash (except within designated off-leash areas).
• Create consistency with Lewis and Clark County Board of Health rabies requirements.
|
|
|
Notable Energy Impact:
|
None noted. |
|
|
Disadvantage:
|
None noted. |
|
|
Notice of Public Hearing:
|
N/A
|
|
|