|
CITY COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM |
|
|
Department: |
City Attorney’s Office |
Commission Meeting Date: Feb. 19, 2019 |
|
|
Staff Contact: |
Maria Garcia, Assistant City Attorney |
||
|
Recommendations/Options/Action Requested: |
|||
|
Receive an update on Ordinance No. 9615 pertaining to the regulation of animals, and direct staff as appropriate. |
|||
|
Executive Summary: |
At its December 11, 2018 meeting, the City Commission considered a number of proposed amendments to Chapter 3 of the City Code pertaining to the regulation of animals, and passed Ordinance 9615 on first reading. The ordinance before the Commission incorporates changes made since the December meeting. Because the proposed changes to Chapter 3 are voluminous, staff seeks direction from the Commission on the additions made since December and invites the public to review the draft and provide input. The ordinance will return at a later time for second reading.
Draft Ordinance Amendments
Since the December meeting, the following changes have been made to the proposed ordinance:
(1) 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. Consistent with Commission direction from the December meeting, staff has added language pertaining to a registration process for any person wishing to own more than the permitted number. Registration would require a one-time $25 registration fee for any person owning more than the allowed number of animals and would be handled by the City Clerk’s office. Registration would require an applicant to affirm that his or her animals are up-to-date on rabies vaccinations and that they regularly visit a veterinarian. A person need only register once for the time in which he or she owns more than the permitted number of animals, and may have his or her information removed from the registry once the number of animals falls below the maximum. (2) Consistent with Commission direction, staff has re-inserted language pertaining to electronic collars. The language exists in the current City Code but was removed in the December 2018 draft upon recommendation of the Humane Society. The language added back will keep the status quo regarding the use of electronic collars as a way to avoid animal at-large status. (3) Definitions are cleaned up to correctly spell the Latin terms for dog and cat, and a definition for “community cat” has been added (see note below on community cats). (4) A section under cruelty to animals is clarified to state that a landlord must contact an Enforcement Officer within 24 hours to report animals known by the landlord to be abandoned in a rental property. This adds clarity to the requirement of actual knowledge by the landlord. (5) Under “Procedures for Animal Cruelty,” the word “shall” has been changed to “may,” consistent with Commission direction, to state that an Enforcement Officer may take an animal into custody. Also under this Section, the term “destroy” is replaced with “Euthanize” at the request of the Humane Society. (6) A weight restriction has been added to address potential ownership of alligators and crocodiles. A person can own a nonvenomous lizard as long as it is under 50 pounds. “Non poisonous” has been added to “fish” to address a concern that a person would have highly poisonous fish in their home aquariums. (7) A statement is added under the Section for Impoundment of Animals stating that a person must reclaim his or her animal that is impounded for being at- large within 5 business days of receiving notice of the animal’s impoundment. Failure to reclaim the animal without good reason (out of town, illness, etc.), could result in the Animal Shelter taking ownership of the animal. (8) Under the list of animals excluded from prohibition, reference to the fairground was added back from the December draft, which had removed it. The reference exists under the current Code and allows animals usually prohibited from being in the City so long as the animals are at the Douglas County fairgrounds specifically. (9) The effective date of the ordinance is updated to May 1, 2019 to allow the Humane Society and City time to work together in creating educational materials related to community cats. See fiscal note below. (10) The remaining changes were requested by the Humane Society and included by staff after consideration.
Notable changes that were provided at the December meeting and which remain in the current proposed draft 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) For consistency with the Kansas Administrative Regulations, the animal bite confinement language is amended. (4) New language is added to address the breeding or selling animals of in the public right of way or other public grounds. (5) 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. (6) 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. (7) 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. (8) 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. (9) 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.
Community Cats. At the December meeting, the Commission heard a significant amount of public comment regarding “community cats.” Trap, Neuter, Release (TNR) is a program that seeks to address stray or feral 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 over time this will reduce the number of feral cats.
Since the December meeting, staff has met with representatives from the Humane Society to discuss the proposed program and has sought feedback from citizens via Lawrence Listens to garner additional input. The results from Lawrence Listens are attached. In the responses gathered, there was overwhelming support for a TNR program in Lawrence, though there remain some concerns by citizens for the welfare of wildlife and birds if feral cats are allowed to remain in the neighborhoods.
The TNR program relies entirely on citizen involvement in the trapping and returning of stray cats. Veterinarians would be called upon by those citizens to spay/neuter and vaccinate the animals, and the cat’s ear would then be clipped to indicate that the cat had been through the TNR process. Staff sent letters to local veterinarians inviting them to provide input on this topic, but has not yet heard back directly from any. Staff also sent letters requesting input to the Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods, the Jayhawk Audubon Society, and the Douglas County Health Department and has similarly not yet heard back. City staff—including animal control officers—would have no additional responsibility, as this would be a citizen-driven project.
After careful review of the project and information provided by the Humane Society and Lawrence Listens, staff has inserted into the proposed ordinance language requested by the Humane Society to allow for a TNR program in Lawrence. This includes adding a definition of community cat and noting specifically in the definition of “owner” that a community cat does not have an owner. This relieves a person setting out food for a feral cat to not be required to care for or vaccinate the animal, since by definition the cat has no owner who is responsible for it. Language is also added under animals at-large that creates an exception for community cats such that the animals are not subject to the at-large rules. This exception would mean animal control officers would not impound cats with clipped ears, as they would be considered community cats that are exempt from the running at-large section. |
||
|
Strategic Plan Critical Success Factor |
Safe, Healthy, and Welcoming Neighborhoods Collaborative Solutions |
||
|
Fiscal Impact (Amount/Source): |
The proposed ordinance creates some additional work for staff in the City Clerk’s Office to review and manage animal limit registrations. To help offset that cost, a one-time $25 fee would be required.
The Humane Society also requests the City’s help as part of an educational campaign on community cats that will inform citizens how the program works and how citizens can be involved. The request is for the City to print educational materials that the Humane Society will design, to include brochures. The fiscal impact of printing is expected to be minimal. |
||
|
Attachments: |
|||
|
(for CMO use only) |
☒TM ☐DS ☐CT ☐BM |