Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lubbock advances changes to dangerous-dog rules: hearings removed, insurance requirement raised in first reading
Summary
On first reading, the City Council voted 6-1 to amend Chapter 4 to align with state law: eliminate the administrative hearing for declaring a dangerous dog, extend compliance time to 30 days, require appeals to municipal court and raise owner liability insurance from $250,000 to $1,000,000 (research on market availability requested).
The City Council gave first-reading approval on Nov. 11 to revisions of Chapter 4 of the code of ordinances that reshape how the city declares and manages "dangerous dogs." The motion passed on a 6-1 vote.
Assistant Director Taylor Ruggles of Lubbock Animal Services summarized the key changes staff proposed: the city would treat "dangerous dogs" as a separate classification aligned with state law, remove the mandatory administrative hearing that previously accompanied a dangerous-dog declaration, give owners 30 days to come into compliance (up from 15), increase required liability insurance from $250,000 to $1,000,000, and make certain repeat offenses subject to higher fines and possible state felony charges.
Ruggles described the investigatory process staff would follow: an affected person files a notarized dangerous-dog affidavit, animal-services staff take witness statements and review the affidavit, and staff would write the notice to the owner if the criteria are met. Councilmembers pressed for clarity about who determines whether an incident was "unprovoked" and whether removing the public hearing would reduce due process protections. "We will be taking witness statements into account," Ruggles said, and she confirmed owners could appeal a dangerous-dog declaration in municipal court.
Several councilmembers raised practical concerns. Councilmembers questioned whether a $1,000,000 policy is available in the local insurance market and asked staff to research availability before second reading; staff confirmed $250,000 is the current statutory baseline and that municipalities may adopt stricter requirements but acknowledged uncertainty about market feasibility.
Councilman Glasheen and others pressed for stronger investigatory language and fewer opportunities for a single uninvestigated complaint to trigger a declaration; council amendments to the draft replaced permissive language ("may investigate") with a stricter duty ("shall investigate") and specified that the director of animal control would make the final administrative determination under the revised code.
What happens next: The ordinance passed first reading; staff will research insurance-market availability and bring back any amendments or additional clarifications before second reading and final adoption.
