|
CITY COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM |
|
|
Department: |
City Attorney’s Office |
Commission Meeting Date: Dec. 11, 2018 |
|
|
Staff Contact: |
Maria Garcia, Assistant City Attorney |
||
|
Recommendations/Options/Action Requested: |
|||
|
Pass on first reading Ordinance No. 9615 pertaining to the regulation of animals, if appropriate. |
|||
|
Executive Summary: |
Chapter 3 of the City Code regarding the Regulation of Animals has not been updated for some time, with a number of provisions having been last updated several decades ago. Staff, including members from the City Attorney’s Office, Police Department, Prosecutors Office, and Planning & Development Services, has met internally and with representatives from the Humane Society—which provided invaluable input—several times to collaborate on the proposed ordinance, which is for Commission consideration. A number of changes have been made, and notable changes include:
(1) Adding a number of definitions that address terms used throughout the ordinance, including more comprehensive definitions for adequate health care, water, and shelter, which will help in the interpretation of the animal cruelty language, as well as defining “owner” and the enforcement officers that may take action under the provisions of the Code. (2) Creating a 3-tier approach to identifying animals as nuisance, dangerous, or vicious. This replaces the current Code language on “aggressive animal at large” and “dangerous dog,” which contain some overlap. The proposed language clearly identifies prohibited conduct by categories. (3) To address animal hoarding, a limit is placed on the number of cats a person may own. Under the current Code no person may own more than four dogs, but there is nothing to address cats. (4) For consistency with the Kansas Administrative Regulations, the animal bite confinement language is amended. (5) New language is added to address the breeding or selling animals of in the public right of way or other public grounds. (6) One penalty section is added at the outset of the ordinance for clarity, rather than having a penalty section at the end of each article. (7) The cruelty to animals section is updated, including adding a new crime for possession of depiction of animal cruelty. This will primarily target videos/photographs of dog fighting but can apply to other situations in which a person possesses an image, in any form, of animal cruelty. (8) Habitual violator is replaced with a new “Reckless Pet Owner” distinction, which applies to someone who violates any provision of the Chapter four or more times within 36-months. As a result of a demonstrated disregard for the laws, a Reckless Pet Owner would not be allowed to own an animal for five years after being declared as such. (9) Replacing picketing of dogs with “tethering of animals,” which addresses tethering, or tying up an animal for a specified period of time, and ensuring that the animal is properly supervised and cared for during that time. (10) The impoundment of animals is updated to clarify the process for impoundment of an animal whose owner is both unknown and known, and clarifying that when known, the owner is responsible for the costs and fees.
There are two outstanding issues for Commission consideration:
1) Animals allowed vs. animals prohibited. The current Code prohibits all animals in the City except ones that are specifically listed. For example, domesticated dogs and fish are specifically identified as animals that a person can own. The pros of this are that permitted animals are specifically enumerated, providing some clarity to the public. However, a negative is that the list is not exhaustive and requires a person to petition the City Commission when he or she seeks to own an animal not listed.
The Humane Society proposes amending the language to instead create a list of animals prohibited so that any animal not on that list would be allowed. Essentially, it would flip the current practice from animals permitted to animals prohibited. A pro of this approach is that the list of permissible animals is significantly broadened, allowing the public to own animals more easily rather than being required to approach the Commission with a specific request. However, a downside to this approach is that is creates an additional burden for the municipal court prosecutors, who may need to obtain an expert to testify and prove that a certain animal meets the broad definition of a prohibited animal, or “exotic animal,” as proposed, which means “any nondomesticated animal or any animal which can normally be found in the wild state, or any venomous or poisonous animal. . .”
In the proposed draft staff has added a number of changes to the current structure, in an attempt to address animals that the Commission may consider allowing. Adopting the proposed language, however, would be a significant change that requires Commission discussion.
2) Community Cats. The Humane Society has been working on establishing a “community cat” program in Lawrence that would address ownerless cats that roam around the city. The goal of the program is to trap a colony of cats, spay/neuter, and vaccinate them, and return them to where they were collected. It is believed that overtime this will reduce the number of feral cats. The Humane Society is familiar with and has worked on this issue for some time, though City staff—while interested in working together to present a proposal to the Commission—does not have enough information about the program to make a recommendation at this time. This is a large discussion item that warrants additional time for creating a collaborative plan between the Humane Society, the City, and any other stakeholders, as well as receiving valuable public input. Staff intends on returning this item to the Commission in the coming weeks.
|
||
|
Strategic Plan Critical Success Factor |
Safe, Healthy, and Welcoming Neighborhoods Collaborative Solutions |
||
|
Fiscal Impact (Amount/Source): |
The proposed ordinance creates no new fiscal impact. |
||
|
Attachments: |
|||
|
(for CMO use only) |
☒TM ☐DS ☐CT ☐BM |