Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Animals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Reynoldsburg council amends 'animals running at large' rule to create rebuttable presumption after attacks
Summary
Council amended section 505.03 of the City of Reynoldsburg codified ordinances to add language making an attack by a dog prima facie evidence the owner failed to exercise reasonable control; the amendment was forwarded from committee and approved on third reading by a 6-0 vote.
Reynoldsburg City Council on May 27 amended section 505.03 (Animals Running at Large) of the city codified ordinances to add a rebuttable presumption that a dog attack shows the owner failed to exercise reasonable control.
Attorney Schiff, presenting the proposed language to the Public Safety, Laws and Courts Committee, said the amendment would add to subsection C(1)(b) a provision that, for the purposes of that subsection, “it shall be prima facie evidence of reasonable control of some person if the dog …” and that the owner would bear the burden to present evidence they took appropriate measures to restrain or control the animal. Schiff said the change is intended to address “the situation that Miss Russell experienced,” referring to an attack described to the committee.
The Public Safety, Laws and Courts Committee moved to amend the ordinance to include the language recommended by the city attorney and to forward the ordinance as amended to full council for a third reading and approval. Council Member Hill moved the committee amendment; the committee seconded the motion and approved forwarding the amended ordinance.
On the council floor the ordinance amendment was placed on the consent agenda for third reading and approval and was adopted by the full council on a 6-0 vote. The clerk announced “6 affirmative votes, 0 negative votes.”
The amendment creates a rebuttable presumption that an attack indicates a failure of the owner to meet duties under the ordinance; under the change, owners may present evidence to rebut that presumption, such as proof they took legal or other actions to restrain the animal. The record shows the city attorney and committee framed the change as a supplemental measure and said related state legislation is also being considered by state lawmakers.
No new penalties, effective dates, or implementing procedures beyond the textual amendment were specified in the meeting record. The ordinance was approved as part of third-reading consent items and will be codified with the city's existing animals-running-at-large provisions.
Council remarks and committee materials referenced a specific prior incident involving a person identified in committee discussion as Miss Russell; the council did not take separate, case-specific action on that incident during the meeting.
