To: Honorable Mayor and Members of Town Council
From: Heidi J. Hugdahl, Deputy Town Attorney
Title
Ordinance Repealing and Reenacting Title 6 of the Castle Rock Municipal Code Concerning Animals (Second Reading)
Body
________________________________________________________________________________
Executive Summary
The ordinance was approved on First Reading on April 17, 2018, by a vote of 5-2. The following substantive changes have been made to the Ordinance between first and second reading:
• Additional provisions have been added to the section on Bees. The additions were driven based on the fact that a local “bee expert” reached out to the Town Attorney’s Office. Based on detailed explanation provided by the expert, and further review of robust municipal codes (namely in municipalities to the north), the decision was made to clarify that section to better address residential bee keeping within the Town. We also added a definition for an “apiary.”
• We deleted the definition of “prohibited animals” because in further review, we noted it was duplicative of the definition we had for exotic and wild animals.
• We also added a definition for neutering, which resulted in a slight modification to the definition of spaying.
• We added language to the reporting provision (6.02.130) to encompass a Health Officer-consistent with state statute.
• Under the permitting requirements for potentially dangerous animals, we added a provision that the Municipal Court could require spaying or neutering of a potentially dangerous animal. This addition was driven in large part by the recognition that spaying and neutering is seen as one of the most significant contributing factors to aggression in animals and we thought this would be a useful tool to improve public safety.
Brief Recap of Public Outreach, Community Input and Other information Reviewed
On April 11, 2017, the Town held the first of two Open Houses. Every Town resident was mailed a postcard advisement of the Open House, and comment forms were made available-in hard copy and on-line. Town residents were afforded an opportunity to comment on a myriad of animal related matters, and broad topics were introduced in an effort to focus the discussion. Information was also circulated to residents in "Your Town Talk" and included in the water bills, in April 2017, in January, 2018, and, again, in March 2018.
Additionally, there were a number of social media postings: 1/18/2017 Twitter Post CCM Colorado News; 3/29/2017 Facebook Post Town of Castle Rock Government; 3/29/2017 Twitter Post Town of Castle Rock; 4/26/2017 Facebook Post Town of Castle Rock Government; 5/2/2017 Facebook Post Town of Castle Rock Government; 5/11/2017 Facebook Post Town of Castle Rock Government; 6/16/2017 Facebook Post Town of Castle Rock Government; 6/29/2017 Facebook Post Town of Castle Rock Government; 9/5/2017 Facebook Post Town of Castle Rock Government; 12/13/2017 Twitter Post Town of Castle Rock; and 1/12/2018 Twitter Post Town of Castle Rock.
At the December 5, 2017 meeting, Council was provided an update, and advised that a second Open House would be scheduled in January, 2018. On January 31, 2018, the Town held a second Open House. And, again, every Town resident was mailed a postcard advisement.
During this entire process, the Town has continued to gather feedback from residents and non-residents. The feedback (with the exception of emails that contained graphic photographs) have been posted on the Town’s website since March 6, 2018. And, the site has been updated. (To the extent a request is made to see the graphic photographs, efforts will be made to make that information available to a requesting party). The information posted contains feedback from April 2017 through April 25, 2018. Efforts have been undertaken to redact email addresses and phone numbers on the feedback.
A good faith effort was made to sort the feedback by resident, non-resident, and unknown. We have undertaken our best efforts to compile all feedback, but the information came to the Town through a variety of channels.
At this writing, the Town has received over 700 pages of feedback through emails and online responses. (Please note there was some duplication and where it was obvious efforts were made to not count multiple copies of the same email or feedback forms).
Updated tallies are as follows:
Resident status requested:
229 known residents responded in favor of replacing the breed-specific ban.
89 known residents opposed replacing the breed-specific ban.
Where resident status was not requested:
48 responded in favor of replacing the breed-specific ban.
27 were opposed to replacing the breed-specific ban.
Where resident status could not be determined:
3 responded in favor of replacing the breed-specific ban.
3 were opposed to replacing the breed-specific ban.
Non-resident responses:
63 non-residents responded in favor of replacing the breed-specific ban.
15 non-residents opposed replacing the breed-specific ban.
1 resident and 1 non-resident made suggestions regarding other possible restrictions in the event the breed-ban is replaced.
With regard to the responses received to date, a vast majority of the focus has been on the breed-specific ban. And, primarily, only Town residents have commented on a variety of other animal related topics such as feeding wildlife (and birds), chickens, bees, barking dogs, exotic animals, livestock, dogs running at large, licensing, cats, and problems associated with animal waste on Town trails and open spaces.
Town staff also reviewed additional literature (which can be found on the Town’s website). And, Town staff also reached out to other communities that lifted similar breed-specific legislation, over the last ten years, and learned that none expressed regret in having lifted similar bans.
Finally, based on a 7-0 vote, Town staff will be bringing goats and pot-bellied pigs back to Council for a discussion/direction item.
On March 6, 2018, Town staff appeared before Council with a presentation on the comprehensive rewrite of Title 6 of the Castle Rock Municipal Code pertaining to animals. After the formal presentation, Council heard approximately an hour of public comment and then engaged in a pointed discussion concerning the proposed Title 6 rewrite.
At Council’s direction (on a 5-2 vote), Town staff was asked to finalize the proposed Ordinance, consistent with the presentation, and to bring the matter back on first reading. Insofar as the Agenda Memorandum, prepared in anticipation of the March 6, 2018 meeting, provided a detailed and comprehensive overview of the substantive recommendations, this memo is meant to recap, supplement, and amplify salient aspects of the memos and other documents, previously provided to Council, related to the proposed Ordinance that would repeal and replace Title 6.
Since the March 6, 2018 Council presentation, the Town has continued to gather feedback, and Town staff has also discussed the issues raised by Council, as well as the residents and non-residents.
Overview of the Process and Proposed Revisions
The general health, safety, and welfare of the residents and animals in the Town has been the primary focus of Town staff in developing the language and procedures found in the proposed Ordinance. Town staff has also attempted to emphasize responsible animal ownership throughout this process, consistent with the challenges present in a growing and diverse community.
A detailed overview of the proposed revisions to Title 6 was provided in a previous Agenda Memo to Council dated March 2, 2018, and is incorporated herein as may be necessary for context, detail or reference. Attached to the March 2018 memo were the story boards/packets from the April 2017 and January 2018 Open Houses, the postcards and various mailers that were sent to residents, as well as social media posts and other communications. Also referenced in the memo, were the feedback forms and emails (from residents and non-residents), and numerous articles (primarily related to the issues attendant to replacing the “Pit Bull” ban).
The Town had received approximately seven hundred (700) pages of feedback (from residents and non-residents), in the form of emails and online feedback forms. Given the amount of feedback, and number of articles, pertaining to issues related to pit bulls, those documents were posted on a separate link on the Town’s website. Additionally, the March 2018 packet contained letters in support - of moving to a behavior-based system, and away from a breed-based system - from the Humane Society of America, the American Kennel Club, and the Dumb Friends League (Buddy Center). Additionally, at the March 2018 Council meeting a local veterinarian (Melanie Wullschleger) also spoke.
Title 6 has been reorganized with the addition of several sections, both new and old, from other Titles in our current code, in an effort to simplify, combine like issues and provide better enforcement tools to law enforcement. The enactment of Pet Animal Care Facilities Act (PACFA) is recognized and incorporated into the proposed ordinance to provide conformity with state regulations and statutes for facilities that may fall under the purview of the Department of Agriculture in the State of Colorado. This is important legislation that has created a modernized and uniform standard as it relates to animal issues.
Several new definitions have been added to the proposed Ordinance as well as a specific penalty section as it relates to violations of Title 6. Along with the ability of the Court to consider the severity of the incident as well as prior violations and recommendations from the Town, the Court is also authorized to impose special sanctions that are intended to further the overall goal of public safety and responsible pet ownership. This penalty section also provides for the payment of fines (on relatively minor offenses) without the requirement to appear in the Municipal Court. This mechanism is intended to provide convenience to defendants who receive a municipal summons and reserve available court time for the most serious offenses. The proposed penalty section, as it relates to monetary fines, is consistent with the fine schedules used in other municipalities in the State.
In addition, the proposed Ordinance incorporates provisions related to owning chickens and beekeeping. Some changes have also been suggested related to noisy dogs, licensing, feeding wildlife, and exotic animals and livestock. A more robust humane care and treatment section has been added and the proposed Ordinance seeks to focus attention on responsible pet ownership. Although there have not been any substantive changes to the proposed Ordinance, from those introduced in March, some of the definitions and provisions have been refined. Town staff is also making a recommendation to add a general nuisance provision that should assist with enforcement and to enhance public’s safety and welfare.
Additional Activities Following the March 6, 2018 Discussion/Direction Meeting
Since the March 6 meeting, Town staff has reached out to a number of municipalities that had lifted “Breed Specific Legislation,” over the course of the last 10 years. We generally inquired as to each community’s experience since having lifted its breed specific ban. Overwhelmingly, the response was far more positive than negative, and most had gone to a two-tiered system (like the one staff is recommending here), or they had implemented a dangerous or vicious dog provision, or like term. Regardless, the common thread was moving to a behavior based model, rather than a breed-specific approach. That said, there were some points made that might be helpful for Council’s consideration.
An Animal Control Officer from (Bonner Springs KS) made the observation that once the breed-ban had been lifted, it appeared that there were more such dogs in the community. His surmise was that with the ban people kept their dogs inside, walked them at night, and essentially kept a low profile. However, when the ban was removed, the dogs that lived in the community become more visible and had a larger presence. This may go to the issues staff found related to the fact that sometimes these dogs are driven underground, they may not be socialized, and they may not get proper veterinarian care, or appropriate exercise because owners fear their dog(s) will be taken away or they will be forced to move. The Officer’s observation provided anecdotal support for that concept.
The Police Officer from Garden City KS explained that there was a dog attack in the County (so not in the City), and that it ran through social media that the attack involved a “pit bull.” In point of fact, the attack involved a Rottweiler. Again, although anecdotal, this is consistent with some of the issues that have been raised with regard to social media posts related to the vagaries associated with accuracy concerning breed identification when it comes to such dog related incidents.
In another instance, the Police Chief from Wellington KS said that his department noticed an uptick in dog bites, not necessarily related to pit bulls. He explained that he had done a study dividing dog bites into different classifications (working, hunting, toy dogs, etc.), and that pit bulls were generally among the top five with other breeds involved in bites. Additionally, the Chief of Police in Greenwood MO explained about a year after lifting the breed ban, there was a severe pit bull attack. Generally, it involved a situation where the family bred these types of dogs, they had locked the dog in a back room, and friends brought over a toddler who was crawling on the floor. Somehow the dog escaped, or was let out of the room, and the dog bit the toddler causing severe damage. Apparently, that dog had previously been involved in a bite incident(s) in another jurisdiction. The event was about 4 years ago and they have not had any issues related specifically to pit bulls since. And, he said that his City was recently voted one of the safest places to live. In another instance, a dog broke loose from a tether in Baldwin City KS, in a yard with either no fence or a poor fence, and ran towards a police officer. The dog was shot, but survived and was returned home. Finally, we observe that in at least one municipality (El Dorado KS), although it has not had any problems, prohibits persons who have been convicted of narcotic or violent crimes, from owning pit bulls, and it has also set forth other restrictions related to pit bull ownership.
Otherwise, again the municipalities with whom we connected have not experienced any significant adverse issues related to lifting their respective breed-specific legislation. What is more, many stated that lifting the ban was overall positive, did more good than not, and allowed their law enforcement to focus on other more pressing issues and to devote time and attention on other enforcement actions. Even taking into account the incidents accounted above, the law enforcement representatives with whom we spoke uniformly viewed repealing such bans in a favorable light and many explained that dog related problems are in large part associated with irresponsible pet owners rather than attributable to any one breed.
In addition to the information above, we also spoke with law enforcement personnel from Shawnee KS; Buckner MO; Tonganoxie KS; Spring Hill KS; Kennett MO; Topeka KS; Garnett KS; South Hutchinson KS; Fairway KS; Lansing KS; and Edwardsville KS, all of whom indicated that they have not had any problems arising out of repealing their respective breed-bans, that generally they have not had any complaints, and that the new ordinances adopted - focusing on behavior - have generally worked well.
We received a couple of comments following the last Council meeting and we noticed that an email (from a veterinarian in Franktown) and letter (regarding snakes) had inadvertently not been included in the previously packet of comments that were posted. Accordingly, there is a link to these as supplements.
Fiscal Impact
At this time, the fiscal impact of this Ordinance is not known. It is anticipated that the Police Department will have to upgrade their current software to accommodate the changes in the proposed Ordinance. There may be additional administrative costs associated with administering the proposed provisions.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Town Council approve the Ordinance, as introduced by title presented, on second reading.
Proposed Motion
“I move to approve the Ordinance 2018-013 Repealing and Reenacting Title 6 of the Castle Rock Municipal Code Concerning Animals.”
Attachments
Attachment A: Ordinance
Attachment B: December 5, 2017 Agenda Memorandum
Attachment C: March 6, 2018 Agenda Memorandum and attachments
Attachment D: March 6, 2018 Dumb Friends League Correspondence
Attachment E: March 2018 Town Talk
Note: Articles and feedback information can be found at www.CRGov.com/Animals