2006-14 AMENDING CITY CODE - CHAPTER 47 - CONTROL OF ANIMALS, FOWL AND DOGS

Home Browse Search

LEGAL DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 2006-04 � March 14, 2006 �' TO: Honorable Mayor Osborne and City Council ; FROM: Steve Garma ity Manager Wendy Morth d, Corporation Counsel �� , Amy Waks, A sistant Corporation Counsel�_�M^� i SUBJECT: Amendment to Chapter 47 —Control of Animals, Fowl and Dogs I�' SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that Council pass the proposed �, ordinance amendment regarding Chapter 47, Sections 1, 20 and 21 allowing for an ' exemption to the registration fee for trained governmentally-owned dogs maintained by '' governmental officers for use in official governmental duties fulltime with proof of such j certified by the governmental agency's Chief or other agency head. ', BACKGROUND: It came to the attention of staff that police officers who live within the � City of Decatur's limits who handle police dogs are being assessed a registration fee when the police dogs are being registered. While the handler does keep the police dog at his residence, the dogs are actually owned by the agency for which the officer works. Therefore, when a police officer who handles a police dog pays the registration fee, they are then reimbursed by the agency for which they work for. For instance, in the case of the three police dogs owned by the Decatur Police Department, the police officer/handler pays for the registration of the police dog at the City and then is reimbursed by the City through the Decatur Police Department. Further, staff has spoken to Macon County, specifically through the States' Attorneys Office, who expressed no objection to the proposed amendments and their desire to do the same. When this was first brought before the Council, Councilmember Edwards had expressed a desire to include an exemption for what he termed "emergency service dogs", with the thought that this language would include police, fire, ESDA, and any other possible agency that may employ a dog for use within their department. The Legal Department had not been able to research this issue prior to Council and was unable to counsel the Council as to whether the language suggested by Councilmember Edwards was appropriate under the law. After conducting research on this issue, it was determined that the suggested language is not appropriate. While State law repeatedly refers to "emergency services" throughout the Illinois Compiled Statutes and case law, it never specifically defines "emergency services" as an all-encompassing term for all of the agencies Councilmember Edwards stated he would like to include. Staff has determined that while in some sections of the Illinois Compiled Statutes, the term is used in a manner as suggested by Councilmember Edwards, it is also used to describe some activities that occur at hospitals. Under Illinois state law, specifically the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act, the only definition of"emergency services" found refers to a coordination of activities which are utilized in the prevention and alleviation of injury or damage resulting from natural or technological causes, such as a tornado or terrorist act. Therefore, the suggested language of "emergency service dogs" would not properly include all of the agencies who may utilize