The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006-03-15 CEAC MINUTES·. Englewood Code Enforcement Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes March 15, 2006 I. Call to Order Chair Dooley Gehr called the regular meeting of the Englewood Code Enforcement Advisory Committee to order at 6:33 p .m . Roll Call Members Present: Chair Gehr , Co-Chair Chris Hoagland , Brian Bleile (arrived at 6:36), Darryl Estes (arrived at 6 :38, departed at 7:30), Paul Hendricks and Marty Mosman Members Absent: Randia Laga (excused), Marc Ogonosky (Alternate) A quorum of the Committee was present. Ex-Officio Members Present: Council Liaison Laurett Barrentine , Sergeant Gary Condreay, and Deputy City Manager Michael Flaherty. Council Liaison Jim Woodward was absent , but excused. Guests: None II. Approval of Minutes Member Hoagland made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 15 , 2006 minutes. The motion was seconded by Member Mosman. The minutes were unanimously approved. III. Oath of Office of New Member Chair Gehr informed the committee that Tom Roth , appointed as a new alternate member, is unable to join CEAC due to a scheduling conflict on Wednesdays. IV. Open Public Forum None V. Unfinished Business A. Dangerous Dogs Discussion Chair Gehr opened the discussion by reviewing the prior committee 's discussion of "concerns and opportunities". Member Hoagland stated that he still believes that there is need for intermediate controls on owners of dangerous dogs . Sergeant Condreay provided the committee with a review of the recent University of Denver forum on "Model Elements for Your Community's Dangerous Dog 1of3 Ordinance " held by the Coalition for Living Safely with Dogs . Condreay distributed a model dangerous dog ordinance that was provided at the forum. Chair Gehr asked what the committee believed their direction to be. After brief discussion the members agreed to discuss each of the ten elements of the model ordinance. There was agreement on most of the model ordinance elements , but some mixed to negative response on the others , particularly the sterilization and licensing requirements. In addition to agreement on several of the model ordinance elements , members discussed an emphasis on public educational efforts and the need for intermediate enforcement authority to address repeat offenders (owner 's as well as dogs). Chair Gehr then requested Sergeant Condreay to address the memorandum that contained input requested of the Code Enforcement officers by the committee . Condreay reviewed the comments of his staff. In general, staff feels that the current ordinances dealing with animal attacks are adequate in prosecution of such cases in court. However, they do have concerns about amount of fines and plea bargains of first time offenders. They feel the fines should be higher. Staff also had suggestions for possible additions to the current ordinances that might help to prevent grievous bodily harm incidents. These included requirements for insurance and/or fencing , segregation of dangerous animals from children, notification of property owners about tenants with a dangerous animal , financial responsibility by owner for restitution, warning signs and report of changes in status of dangerous animals. The committee discussed these suggestions briefly and stated opposition to the insurance requirement, as insurance would not likely be available , except at a very high cost for an animal with a history of attacks. Committee members felt this approach was simply an excuse for removal of an animal and that the City should be forthright in such dealings . If an animal is dangerous , it should be restricted or removed and not eliminated through requirement of unobtainable insurance co verage . At that point, Chair Gehr advised the committee that the discussion should be continued to the next meeting due to time constraints and other items on the agenda . A motion was made by Member Hoagland to continue the discussion , seconded by Member Bleile and approved. B. Property Owner Responsibility for Maintenance of Public Right-of-Way Sergeant Condreay distributed a copy of the current ordinance (Section 11-5-5) along with information on the Motto case to the committee , for which the City prevailed in the Colorado Supreme Court. Member Hoagland contended that the State statute did not support the City's actions in the Motto case and that the Motto 's attorney presented a faulty case . Chair Gehr then stated that due to time constraints and the likely need for lengthy discussion on this topic , that the matter be continued. A motion to continue discussion was made by Member Bleile and seconde d by Member Mosman . The motion was approved . 2 of3 VI. New Business A. Old Tyme Fair/FunFest Booth Member Mosman suggested that the committee have a booth at the City 's Old Tyme Fair/FunFest on August 26 to provide information on the activities of the committee to the public. B. Off-Road Vehicles Ordinance Member Hoagland reminded the committee that the Off-Road Vehicle ordinance amendment was to be presented to City Council at their April 1 7 study session . He requested that the City Attorney provide a copy of the draft to the committee. VII. Monthly Activity Report Sergeant Condreay distributed and discussed the February activity (copy attached) Items of interest included 99 animal control contacts , 3 animals attacks , and 46 animals running at large contacts. Graffiti enforcement continues to be a problem and a priority. Two additional arrests have been made since the last committee meeting . VIII. Topics for Future Meeting A. Dangerous Dogs (7.lA.10/11) B. Property Owner's Responsibility for Public Right of Way (11.5.S) C. Off-Road Vehicle Ordinance amendment D. FunFest Booth VIII Adjournment Member Mosman made a motion to adjourn , which was seconded by Member Hoagland. The motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8 :30 p.m . Michael Flaherty 3 of3 MEMORANDUM TO: Code Enforcement Advisory Committee FROM: Sgt. Gary W . Condreay DATE: March 9, 2006 SUBJECT: Information from Code Enforcement Officers Reference Animal Attacks I requested input from the four Code Officers reference any issues in dealing with animal attack cases to include the prosecution of cases and any additions to current ordinances that would be beneficial in handling animal attack issues. All officers felt the current ordinances were adequate as currently written as far as prosecuting cases involving animal attacks. They did have some concerns on the amount of fines and plea bargains on first time offenders . They felt the fines should be higher. They also had input as far as some additions to the ordinance which could possibly prevent a grievous bodily hann incident. • Requirement for the owner or keeper of a vicious dog or cat to have additional homeowners insurance to cover the animal. • Additional restrictions on animals convicted of an attack to require a fenced , escape proof enclosure (animals should not to be chained), to be leashed and muzzled when off the property, and cats should be transported in an appropriate earner. • If injury is inflicted upon a child by a dog or cat the owner or keeper sh all ensure that the animal is not allowed to have contact with children. • Notification of the landlord or property owner about tenants with vicious animals. • Animal owners to be financially liable for any cost accumulated due to an attack. Court ordered restitution to be equal or greater than cost of damages. • Immediately report any change in the status of the vicious animal - i.e . change of address, escape, death of the animal. • Signs at the front and rear of the property warning of a vicious animal. • Requirement for a vicious animal to be spayed or neutered. The fine fr om the court could be lowered if the owner could show proof that the animal had been spayed or neutered. • • • Coalition for Living Safely with Dogs Model Elements for Your Community's Dangerous Dog Ordinance (1) Clear, fair, and easy-to-follow procedures. A well-defined procedure for determining whether a dog is potentially dangerous or dangerous . This procedure should include a complaint process, a notice period for owners, a hearing, and procedures that would allow dogs to be removed from the list after meeting some objective criteria. (e.g., passing a behavior test, combined with X number of months with no reported incidents.) (2) Owners are held accountable . A mechanism that tracks ordinance violations by owner, not by the individual dog involved. (e.g., if an owner has two dogs, and each is found running at large on separate occasion, the ordinance should allow animal control professionals to charge the owner with an elevated penalty for the second infraction, despite it being the individual animal's first incident). (3) No injury to people or animals required for action. Inclusion of a classification for dogs that have not yet attacked or killed people or animals, but have shown a propensity towards aggressive /vicious behavior. (e.g., a "potentially dangerous" or "aggressive" classification.) (4) Increased penalties . Increased penalties for the first and second "running at large" incidents and other violations of animal control ordinances . Owners could be given the choice between a very costly reclamation fee for first running at large offense and spaying/ neutering their dog . (5) Sterilization required . Spay and neuter requirement that is triggered when the dog is found running at large more than one time. This provision would also require sterilization of dogs that have been adjudged to be potentially dangerous or dangerous. Under this system, autl1orities would also have the ability to defer certain .enumerated fines, such that owners would only be required to remit payment if they failed to undertake court-mandated actions (e.g., sterilizing or microchipping their dog). (6) Owners . can choose education over fines . In conjunction with increased penalties, offering a "first-time aninlal ordinance offender diversion program." Offenders would be given the choice between attending the diversion program or paying a very costly fine (e.g., at least $500). Classes should cover the basic health, nutrition, and safety requirements of dog ownership . Additional points that could be covered include: information about local spay/neuter and vaccination clinics and services offered at local shelters. · (7) Increased licensing fees for intact and dangerous animals. Differential licensing fees based on the animal's spay/neuter status and on the animal's potentially dangerous /dangerous status . (8) No tethering permitted. Prohibition of/ restrictions on tethering of dogs. (9) Mandatory microchipping. Mandatory microchipping for dogs found running at large more than once. Requirement should include some means of enforcement (e.g., microchip registration materials are submitted by the owner to the animal control agency, which forwards them to the database administrator). (10)Strong anti-cruelty provisions. Anti-cruelty provisions that are enforced in conjunction with the municipality's dangerous dog law . March 2006 page 1 of 2 Measures to Help Ensure the Success of Your Community Dangerous Dog Ordinance (1) Communhy education. Using the fees generated from increased penalties and differential licensing, communities should consider offering basic pet ownership classes, particularly in underserved areas of the community. (2) Community-friendly reporting system. Using fees generated from increased penalties and differential licensing, communities should consider instituting a hotline number or an 800 number that would allow citizens to report dogs running at large, dogs behaving in a potentially dangerous manner, or other animal control ordinance violations. This system could be particularly effective if implemented at the regional level, with operators trained in dispatching calls to the appropriate shelter or animal control agency. (3) Regionally enforceable dangerous dog ordinances. Communities should work together on a regional level to ensure (1) strong dangerous dog ordinances are in effect across jurisdictional lines and (2) ordinances are being uniformly enforced throughout the region. (4) Integration of education and enforcement programs . As part of the sentencing process information • about sterilization, vaccinations, and community animal resources should be given to animal ordinance violators. Depending on available community resources, courts may elect to dispense free or subsidized • spay/ neuter vouchers to ordinance violators (particularly where violators have been ordered to sterilize their animals). The Coalition for Living Safely with Dogs is a group of Colorado animal health, care, and control professionals seeking to educate dog owners about responsible pet ownership, inform citizens about their rights and responsibilities for making communities safer, and assist municipalities in creating and enforcing good dangerous dog laws. • • • • All Breed Rescue Network (ABRN) Animal Assistance Foundation (AAF) Colorado Association of Animal Control Officers (CAA CO) Colorado Association of Certified Veterinary Technicians (CACVI) • • • • Colorado Federation of Animal Welfare Agencies (C FA WA)Colorado Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) Denver Area Veterinary Medical Society (DA VMS) Metro Denver Shelter Alliance (MDSA) Summerlee Foundation Ge neral Inqu iries: David Gies, Animal Assistance Foundation, 303/744-8396, D_Dog@aaf-fd.org Media Inquiries: Jayme Nielson-Foley, Denver Area Veterinary Medical Society, 303/318-0447, jaymenielson-foley@colovma.org March 2006 page 2 of 2 • ' w a. • ~ w (/) < 0 .... 0 -c: :::l 0 0 • • ... • ABANDONED VEHICLE 100 • GRAFFITI 80 ILLEGAL DUMPING 60 40 ~ • MISC CODE 20 co N OUTDOOR STORAGE ROW OBSTRUCTION • SNOW REMOVAL • TREES CASETYPE Cases Opened (By Type and Subtype) For the Period 2/1/2006 thru 2/28/2006 TYPE SUBTYPE ABANDONED VEHICLE no subtype ANIMAL CONTROL GRAFFITI HOUSING #of Animals Attack Attack (Bite) C/B Dog Cruelty/Neglect Dead Animal Leash Law Misc Animal no subtype Running-at-Large Vaccination Req Wildlife no subtype Multi Family no subtype Single Family ILLEGAL DUMPING no subtype INOPERABLE VEHICLE <none> no subtype MISC CODE Misc Code 23 1 2 3 9 3 10 4 5 6 46 1 9 43 1 1 4 13 1 75 14 3/15/2006 COE_CODE?OS • ANIMAL CONTROL • HOUSING • INOPERABLE VEHICLE • OFF ROAD VEHICLE PARKING SIGNS • TRASH AND LITTER • ZONING Page Cases Opened (By Type and Subtype) -, ..,, For the Period 2/1/2006 thru 2/28/2006 , ' TYPE SUBTYPE no subtype 1 • OFF ROAD VEHICLE no subtype 3 OUTDOOR STORAGE no subtype 28 PARKING no subtype 15 ROW OBSTRUCTION no subtype 2 SIGNS no subtype 11 SNOW REMOVAL no subtype 30 TRASH AND LITTER no subtype 47 TREES • no subtype 2 ZONING no subtype Grand Total: 414 • 3/15/2006 COE_CODE70S Page 2