Parks, Arts, and Culture Committee

City Council - Parks, Arts and Culture Committee Thursday, May 23, 2024, 12:00 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room MEETING TO BE HELD IN PERSON AT 645 PINE ST FRONT CONFERENCE ROOM AND VIA ZOOM When: May 23, 2024 12:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Topic: PACC Meeting Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://zoom.us/j/93438457883 Or One tap mobile : +13052241968,,93438457883# US +13092053325,,93438457883# US Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): +1 305 224 1968 US Webinar ID: 934 3845 7883 International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/abF3KYTLg 1. Call to Order Subject 1.1. Call to Order Meeting May 23, 2024 - Parks, Arts and Culture Committee Meeting - Thursday, May 23, 2024, 12:00 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room Category 1. Call to Order Department Type 2. Approve Agenda & Minutes Subject 2.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda Meeting May 23, 2024 - Parks, Arts and Culture Committee Meeting - Thursday, May 23, 2024, 12:00 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room Category 2. Approve Agenda & Minutes Page 1 of 90  Department Type Recommended Action 2.2. Motion to adopt previous meeting's minutes 3. Public Forum Subject 3.1. PUBLIC FORUM - Verbal Comments Meeting May 23, 2024 - Parks, Arts and Culture Committee Meeting - Thursday, May 23, 2024, 12:00 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room Category 3. Public Forum Department Type 4. Agenda Subject 4.1. Kieslich Park Meeting May 23, 2024 - Parks, Arts and Culture Committee Meeting - Thursday, May 23, 2024, 12:00 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room Category 4. Agenda Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront Type Recommended Action Subject 4.2. Dog Task Force Final Update Meeting May 23, 2024 - Parks, Arts and Culture Committee Meeting - Thursday, May 23, 2024, 12:00 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room Category 4. Agenda Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront Type Recommended Action Subject 4.3. BCA Summer Update Meeting May 23, 2024 - Parks, Arts and Culture Committee Meeting - Thursday, May 23, 2024, 12:00 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room Category 4. Agenda Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront Type Recommended Action Page 2 of 90 5. Adjournment Subject 5.1. Motion to adjourn Meeting May 23, 2024 - Parks, Arts and Culture Committee Meeting - Thursday, May 23, 2024, 12:00 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room Category 5. Adjournment Department Council and Board Type Recommended Action 6. Informational and Non-Discrimination Statements The City of Burlington will not tolerate unlawful harassment or discrimination on the basis of political or religious affiliation, race, color, national origin, place of birth, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, veteran status, disability, HIV positive status, crime victim status or genetic information. The City is also committed to providing proper access to services, facilities and employment opportunities. The programs and services of the City of Burlington are accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals who require special arrangements, auxiliary aid, service for effective communication, or a modification of policies or procedures to participate in a program, service, or activity of the City of Burlington, should contact the office of the Title II Burlington ADA Coordinator at 802-865-7000 as soon as possible but no later than 48 hours before the scheduled event. Page 3 of 90 TO: Burlington City Council FROM: Cindi Wight, BPRW Director CC: Deryk Roach, Parks Superintendent DATE: May 14, 2024 RE: Kieslich Park Incident and Ongoing Conservation Efforts Dear Members of the City Council, I am writing to update you on a recent incident at Kieslich Park, the steps taken to address this matter, and our plans to prevent future occurrences. Background and Incident Overview: In mid-January, a severe storm caused significant damage at Kieslich Park, resulting in the felling of several large trees onto the SD Ireland construction area within the Cambrian Rise property. SD Ireland undertook immediate clean-up efforts and alerted us soon after to let us know about the situation. Unfortunately, these actions were not coordinated with our department prior to their work and resulted in impacts to our land that were not in line with the conservation practices for the property.. This included the removal of trees and debris from city property without prior consultation or permission. Response and Remediation: Upon discovering the extent of the impact to the land, our team engaged with SD Ireland on the protocols for managing city property and clarified park boundaries. SD Ireland has acknowledged their oversight and committed to improved communication with our department. They have agreed that from now on, they will consult with us before undertaking any actions that may impact Kieslich Park. To address the immediate environmental impact, we contracted Dr. Bill Keeton from the University of Vermont to assess the ecological damage and to recommend remediation strategies. His report was presented to and supported by the Conservation Board in early May, setting the stage for ecological restoration that aligns with our stewardship responsibilities. We will bring the final restoration plan to the Conservation Board in June for their approval. We will engage our legal team on the necessary paperwork to provide SD Ireland to ensure they cover all costs for the restoration. Ongoing and Future Initiatives: To ensure the resilience of Kieslich Park and to mitigate future risks, we are implementing several strategic initiatives: Page 4 of 90  1. Enhanced Boundary Markings and Signage: To delineate the conservation areas, preventing unauthorized access or activities. 2. Regular Stakeholder Engagements: Meet with neighboring properties and construction firms to discuss park boundaries and conservation guidelines. 3. Community Outreach and Education: We met with the Conservation Board on 5/6/24 and with the residents of Cambrian Rise on 5/9/24 at the Laurentide community room to ensure we heard the voices of others as we work towards a restoration plan. We will continue to increase awareness about the park’s ecological and community value and foster a collaborative approach to its preservation. We anticipate a fall planting day with the community, including neighbors, contractors, and staff, to connect further with the property and provide a way for everyone to be a part of the healing of the land. Conclusion: This incident at Kieslich Park has been a learning opportunity for all parties involved. It has highlighted the need for stricter adherence to conservation protocols and enhanced communication between the city, contractors, and community stakeholders. We are committed to ensuring that Kieslich Park remains a well-managed and treasured part of our community’s natural heritage. We appreciate the Council’s support as we pursue these initiatives. We will provide an update to PACC at the 5/23/24 meeting and send a follow-up memo to the Council once we have a final remediation plan approved by the Conservation Board and VHCB and accepted by SD Ireland. Best regards, Cindi Wight Director, Burlington Parks, Recreation & Waterfront Page 5 of 90  Assessment of Site Impacts from Unauthorized Strip Cutting and Remediation Options for Kieslich Park, Burlington, VT May 3, 2024 Submitted to: Burlington Department of Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Submitted by: William S. Keeton, PhD. Professor of Forest Ecology and Forestry Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resource University of Vermont 0 Page 6 of 90 Introduction This report summarizes findings from a rapid assessment of impacts to Kieslich Park, in Burlington’s New North End, resulting from an incursion into the city owned property by S.D. Ireland Construction company. Also presented are a plan for remediation of the impacted areas and the associated estimated costs. The assessment and report were commissioned by the Burlington (hereafter referred to as “the City”) Department of Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront (DPRW). The incursion across the property boundary was in response to a wind throw event that left uprooted and leaning trees within a forested portion of the park immediately adjacent to the Cambrian Rise development and along the foot trail leading into the park from North Avenue. S.D. Ireland workers cleared three swaths or strips of trees penetrating approx. 122, 119, and 77 feet, respectively, into the park (Fig. 1). The strips were variable in shape and dimension, with maximum widths ranging from approx. 38 to 58 feet. The stated intent by S.D. Ireland was to salvage log and “clean up” areas of wind damaged trees, consisting of trees laying across the property line but also including many uprooted or snapped trees located entirely on city park property (Fig. 2). Figure 1. Map of areas (in red) impacted by unauthorized strip-cut salvage logging at Kieslich Park, Burlington. Map produced by Burlington Department of Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront. 1 Page 7 of 90  Figure 2. One of the three unauthorized strip cuts extending into Kieslich Park. Note the pile of logs (background) cut from City property. Problem statement The unapproved salvage operation, conducted without consultation with City or DPRW personnel, cleared all tree stems within the strip cuts. Furthermore, in some cases tree trunks were apparently excavated or pulled out of the ground at the base, removing the entire root wads (Fig. 3). This is an exceedingly rare practice (i.e. virtually non-existent) on any type of managed, working, or conserved forest in Vermont because it does considerable damage to the soil and belowground system. Intermediate or moderate intensity windthrow, like the event at Kieslich Park, has an enriching effect on habitat structure in maturing secondary forests (Meigs and Keeton 2018). What looks like a “mess” to some, represents habitat complexity and niches for plants and animals. The strip cuts removed the opportunity to retain and interpret these dynamics where they would have been appropriate, for example where damaged trees did not pose a safety problem or property demarcation concern. Moreover, contemporary approaches to ecological forest management stress the importance of retaining “residual structure,” also called “biological legacies,” following disturbances such as windthrow (Meigs and Keeton 2018). These provide important habitat for many species, helping to “life-boat” 2 Page 8 of 90 them through the post-disturbance period and biologically enriching the regenerating secondary forest (Keeton 2006, Urbano and Keeton 2017). Particularly on park lands, there would be an interest in retaining some of this structure, in the form of standing dead and dying trees as well as downed logs, as habitat for wildlife and to store carbon, return organic matter to the soil system, increase infiltration during rain events, and reduce erosion. Up-turned root wads, called “tip up mounds” in the forestry profession, are also considered unique habitat structures (Keeton et al. 2018). While damaged trees deemed to pose a safety concern would likely have been removed, for instance along the foot trail, those determinations would have been made with careful consideration of other ecological values as mentioned above. Figure 3. In some cases, the bases of trees (called “root wads”) were apparently excavated from the ground, a highly unusual practice that causes considerable soil damage. Hence, the problem created by the salvage cuts is, quite simply, the removal of this opportunity and the heavy-handed nature of the cuts themselves, which completely removed all legacy structure and scrapped the forest floor clean of most woody debris (Fig. 3). There are also foregone opportunities for interpretation and public education around the role of natural disturbances and biological legacies in shaping forest ecosystems. The loss of legacy structure (i.e. habitat provided by downed trees and tip-up mounds) cannot be immediately remediated, although downed logs could be brought to the site from another location. However, the impacted sites can be reforested and this report recommends actions that are needed to accomplish this objective. Reforestation will not be as simple as planting tree seedlings, because light 3 Page 9 of 90 levels are low, due to over-hanging forest canopies, and competition with invasive shrubs (e.g. exotic honeysuckle) and vines (e.g. grape) will be high. The latter is likely because invasive shrubs and vines typically proliferate and spread quickly, responding to both the elevated light levels and soil disturbance associated with cuts like these. Consequently, this report recommends a variety of remediation activities including but not restricted to tree planting. Methods and Approach To collect data for this assessment I visited the impacted areas twice, on April 11 and 13. On the first visit I took measurements of the dimensions of the strip cut areas using an Impulse 200 Laser Rangefinder. On the second visit, three forest inventory plots were established at random locations within uncut areas of the immediately adjoining forested stand. Plots were sampled using a variable radius prism method (10 BAF) to rapidly collect information on tree species composition and basal area (a measure of the total cross-sectional area of tree stems), providing an estimate of the pre-cutting stand condition (Table 1). Field notes were taken describing site impacts, including the prevalence of garbage and destruction of the sediment containment barrier along the property boundary, apparently caused by driving heavy machinery across the property line and barrier (Figure 4). Figure 4. Garbage and disrupted sediment containment barrier along the property boundary 4 Page 10 of 90 Using the dimensions of the area impacted I confirmed the square footage estimates previously provided by the City (see Fig. 1). Then, I assumed 7’ by 7’ spacing (typical planting density for northern hardwoods [Keeton 2008]) to estimate the number of planted trees that would be needed for remediation, dividing the total area of each strip by 49 ft2 to calculate the total number of trees required for each opening. Table 1. Calculations for the number of trees required for planting in each of the three openings at Kieslich Park. The calculations assumed that trees will be planted at a density of 49 ft2 per tree. The site numbers and square footage correspond to the areas mapped in Figure 1. Tree number calculations Column1 Area in Sq Ft. # of trees required at 7' by 7' spacing Site 1 2,178 44 Site 2 1,742 36 Site 3 2,614 53 Total 133 To develop a remediation budget, I assumed that the City will need to plant larger caliper trees (nursery grown, container stock) with heights in the 5’ to 7’ range. This is because seedling/sapling survival and establishment under a partial canopy like the conditions at Kieslich Park is highly challenging, with high mortality rates often likely. Larger planting stock, having better developed root systems and foliage, will have a much better chance of surviving. But this comes at the cost of higher expense per tree, as evidenced in the budget (see Table 2). Other estimated expenses of remediation (e.g. tree protection, maintenance, and labor) followed standard pricing procedures. Required protection supplies (tree tubes, brush mats, ground staples, stakes, etc.) were obtained from Forestry Suppliers, Ltd. (https://www.forestry-suppliers.com, accessed on April 20, 2024). Findings and Restoration Budget The estimated remediation budget is shown in Table 2. Assuming that larger trees will be needed for planting as explained above, and factoring in the costs of tree protection, invasives species control, and labor needed both for initial work and longer-term maintenance. The latter was calculated for only the first two years post-planting, although maintenance likely will be needed for much longer. Using these calculation methods, I estimate that remediation costs will total approximately $23,435. The results of the rapid forest inventory (Table 3) suggested that the pre-disturbance stand condition was of relatively low quality from either a natural community perspective (i.e. ecological integrity or the species composition historically associated with the site type) or a forestry perspective (i.e. volume, stocking, and merchantable species). The stand was largely dominated by black locust, which is a species native to the region but not endemic to the site occupied by Kieslich Park. Its presence there reflects the history of human clearing and disturbance. In addition, there is a significant component of Norway maple, which is an exotic, highly invasive species found throughout Burlington. It outcompetes many native, endemic species and is considered a nuisance in city parks. 5 Page 11 of 90 Table 2. Budget estimate for remediation of the unauthorized strip cuts at Kieslich Park, Burlington Column1 Column2 Column3 Column4 Column5 Column6 Site # (from survey) # of items or hours Cost per unit or labor hour ($) Row sub-total Notes Trees Site 1 44 160 7112 Assumes 5' to 7' ht. white pine, red oak, and red maple Site 2 36 160 5688 Assumes 5' to 7' ht. white pine, red oak, and red maple Site 3 53 160 8536 Assumes 5' to 7' ht. white pine, red oak, and red maple Assumes 3' by 3' tree mats. Bundle of 100 = $161.25, Brush mats staples Site 1 22 3 67 plus shippins and 4 earth staples per mat Assumes 3' by 3' tree mats. Bundle of 100 = $161.25, Site 2 18 3 53 plus shippins and 4 earth staples per mat Assumes 3' by 3' tree mats. Bundle of 100 = $161.25, Site 3 27 3 80 plus shippins and 4 earth staples per mat Cost per tree = $6. Needed only for the oak and maple, not the pine. Will need one pack of 100, 56" shelters at Tree shelters and stakes Site 1 22 6 133 $356 per pack, plus shipping; Stakes are $1.5 each Cost per tree = $6. Needed only for the oak and maple, not the pine. Will need one pack of 100, 56" shelters at Site 2 18 6 107 $356 per pack, plus shipping; Stakes are $1.5 each Cost per tree = $6. Needed only for the oak and maple, not the pine. Will need one pack of 100, 56" shelters at Site 3 27 6 160 $356 per pack, plus shipping; Stakes are $1.5 each Tree planting labor Site 1 12 25 300 Assumes hourly wages of $25.00/hr Site 2 8 25 200 Assumes hourly wages of $25.00/hr Site 3 16 25 400 Assumes hourly wages of $25.00/hr Invasive/noxious plant control (two years) Site 1 5 25 125 Assumes hourly wages of $25.00/hr Site 2 4 25 100 Assumes hourly wages of $25.00/hr Site 3 6 25 150 Assumes hourly wages of $25.00/hr Watering and maintenance (two Years) Site 1 3 25 75 Assumes hourly wages of $25.00/hr Site 2 2 25 50 Assumes hourly wages of $25.00/hr Site 3 4 25 100 Assumes hourly wages of $25.00/hr Total estimated costs $ 23,435.57 Even so, several ecologically important native species form minor components of the stand composition. These include green ash, red oak, Eastern cottonwood, and paper birch. The red oak, in particular, is an indicator of the lakeshore bluff oak-pine natural community that was endemic to this site type pre-19th century clearing (Thompson et al. 2019). There was at least one large red oak log in the pile of cut logs. Oak logs are of particular value for habitat and ecological processes due to their slow decay rates and, thus, long residency times. From an ecological recovery standpoint, it would have been much better to leave that log and the others in place within the windthrown areas, or to have “dropped and left” them if suspended within uprooted or leaning trees. Table 3. Species composition by basal area of undisturbed portions of the stand affected by the unauthorized strip cuts at Kieslich Park. Basal area means and variances were estimated from three, randomly established, variable radius (prism) plots. 2 Tree Species Average Basal Area (ft /acre) by Species Proportion (Mean) Proportion Std Error Norway Maple 13.33 9.52 13.33 Green Ash 3.33 2.38 3.33 Sugar maple 3.33 2.38 3.33 Box elder 3.33 2.38 3.33 Red oak 10.00 7.14 3.42 Eastern cottonwood 3.33 2.38 3.33 Black locust 100.00 71.43 31.72 Paper birch 3.33 2.38 3.33 2 Total Basal Area (ft /acre) 140 100.00 6 Page 12 of 90 Restoration Plan To remediate the areas that were strip cut, this report recommends planting 133 trees across the three disturbed areas (see Table 1). I recommend a planting density of 49 ft2 per tree to allow sufficient growing space for each stem, accounting for some degree of mortality, and with adequate residual density to “train” the vertical development and growth form of each tree. Red oak and a combination of red and sugar maple are recommended, as these are major components of the site-endemic natural community. White pine is recommended for the same reason, and because of its fast growth rates where light is sufficient and due to its relative non-susceptibility to herbivory. Pitch pine would also be appropriate for this natural community type, particularly as several mature pitch pine remain nearby within the park, evidence of its historic presence. However, pitch pine is difficult to source locally, especially at the recommended sizes. The other recommended species are easily sourced within the state. As described above, I recommend purchasing larger caliper (e.g. > 1” diameter at breast height) trees of > 5’ height to ensure higher success rates in the partially shaded and highly competitive growing conditions. Each tree should be planted in a tree tube (or “shelter”) to protect from basal (bottom) girdling by rodents. These should be centered in water-permeable brush mats (3’ by 3’) to control competing vegetation around each tree stem. Stakes and ground stables will be required. There is a high prevalence of invasive honeysuckle and buckthorn at Kieslich Park. In addition, American grape is abundant and smothering the crowns of some trees. All of these species are likely to pose challenges for tree establishment in the strip cut areas. Consequently, remediation should include a plan to periodically revisit the site to brush hog and/or control competing vegetation. Multiple visits throughout at least the first two summers following planting will be needed to water each stem. Without active watering, mortality rates in the planted trees are likely to be high (Keeton 2008). Remediation would be further improved by deliberately placing 2 to 3 large logs in Sites 1 and 3, and 1 or 2 large logs in Site 2. These should be obtained off-site from a harvesting operation elsewhere. Cost of purchase, trucking, and placement were not included in the budget estimate, as this would be a supplementary action intended to compensate from the removal of biological legacies (residual habitat structure). Literature Cited Keeton, W.S. 2006. Managing for late-successional/old-growth characteristics in northern hardwood- conifer forests. Forest Ecology and Management 235: 129-142. Keeton, W.S. 2008. Evaluation of seedling mortality and protective strategies in riparian restoration. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 25:117-123. Keeton, W.S., C. Lorimer, B. Palik, and F. Doyon. 2018. Silviculture for old-growth in the context of global change. Pages 237-265 in: Barton, A. and W.S. Keeton (eds.). Ecology and Recovery of Eastern Old- Growth Forests. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 340 pp. 7 Page 13 of 90 Meigs, G.W. and W.S. Keeton. 2018. Intermediate-severity wind disturbance in mature temperate forests: effects on legacy structure, carbon storage, and stand dynamics. Ecological Applications 28: 798-815. Thompson, E.H., E.R. Sorenson, and R.J. Zaino. 2019. Wetland, Woodland, Wildland: A Guide to the Natural Communities of Vermont, 2nd Edition. The Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department, The Nature Conservancy, and Vermont Land Trust. Montpelier, VT. Urbano, A.R. and W.S. Keeton. 2017. Forest structural development, carbon dynamics, and co-varying habitat characteristics as influenced by land-use history and reforestation approach. Forest Ecology and Management. 392: 21–35. 8 Page 14 of 90 Storm pictures from SD Ireland January email Page 15 of 90 Page 16 of 90 Page 17 of 90 Page 18 of 90 Page 19 of 90 ‭12/13/23‬ ‭City of Burlington, VT‬ ‭2021-2023 Dog Task Force‬ ‭Executive Summary‬ ‭The Dog Task Force was created in 2021 by a‬ ‭City Council resolution to address the‬ ‭growing number of dogs in Burlington and a‬ ‭perceived increase in conflicts. The Task‬ ‭Force included a broad representation of‬ ‭stakeholders. It met from 2022-2023 to carry out the tasks outlined in the resolution. This‬ ‭report includes details of the work of the Task Force, recommendations and rationale.‬ ‭Key recommendations:‬ ‭1)‬ ‭Modernize and update the city ordinances that relate to animals.‬ ‭2)‬ ‭Improve the licensing process and dramatically increase the number of animals‬ l‭icensed in the city. Allocate a portion of the license revenues for programs and‬ ‭activities that support healthy and happy dogs and cats within the City.‬ ‭3)‬ ‭Require cats to be licensed and prohibit at-large cats, with certain exceptions‬ ‭4)‬ ‭Improve the reporting, compliance and enforcement of animal-related ordinances‬ ‭by creating the position of Animal Control Officer at the Police Department and‬ ‭adding professional experts to the Animal Control Committee.‬ ‭5)‬ ‭Establish a policy for off-leash dogs that includes the management and creation of‬ ‭fenced and unfenced off-leash dog areas at a limited number of locations; and‬ ‭recommend BPRW conduct a pilot project to test unfenced off-leash areas for dogs.‬ Page 20 of 90  ‭6)‬ ‭Create and expand an annual calendar of education outreach, activities and‬ ‭parks-based events to reduce issues and conflicts around domestic animals while‬ ‭celebrating the joy they bring to Burlington’s residents.‬ ‭Table of Contents:‬ ‭Executive Summary‬ ‭1‬ ‭Findings and Recommendations‬ ‭4‬ ‭Ordinance Updates‬ ‭4‬ ‭Licensing Programs and Policy Updates‬ ‭5‬ ‭Cats: Licensing and Prohibition of At-Large Cats‬ ‭7‬ ‭Reporting, Enforcement & Compliance‬ ‭8‬ ‭Off Leash Areas‬ ‭10‬ ‭Education Campaign‬ ‭11‬ ‭Appendices‬ ‭14‬ ‭Appendix A: Council Resolution‬ ‭14‬ ‭Appendix B: Committee Members & Staff Participants‬ ‭19‬ ‭Appendix C: Proposed Amendments to City Ordinances‬ ‭20‬ ‭Appendix D: Detailed Licensing Information‬ ‭42‬ ‭Appendix E: Compliance, Reporting, and Enforcement Challenges‬ ‭45‬ ‭Appendix F: Proposed Off-Leash Dog Ordinance and Off-Leash Dog Policy‬ ‭48‬ ‭Appendix G: Off-Leash Detailed Findings & Recommendations‬ ‭53‬ ‭Appendix H: Education Campaign‬ ‭57‬ ‭Appendix I: Data Summaries (Police Incident Reports, Off-Leash Survey)‬ ‭63‬ ‭Appendix J: Task Force Progress Reports to City Council PACC Committee‬ ‭70‬ ‭Appendix K: History of Prior Task Force Work‬ ‭70‬ ‭2‬ Page 21 of 90  ‭Fig. 1. A map showing that dog registrations appear to be evenly spread across the city, indicating both that‬ ‭dogs are located all over the city and that the low licensing numbers are pervasive and not restricted to any‬ ‭specific areas.‬ ‭3‬ Page 22 of 90 ‭Findings and Recommendations‬ ‭Ordinance Updates‬ ‭Recommendation:‬ ‭Modernize and update the city ordinances‬‭that relate to animals‬ ‭The City of Burlington ordinances related to animals (Chapter 5 “Animals and Fowl”) have‬ ‭not been updated on a regular basis, in some cases for 26 years. As a result, many of the‬ ‭ordinances are outdated with regard to current terminology and regulatory practices. The‬ ‭Task Force ordinance subcommittee conducted a comprehensive review of the ordinances‬ ‭and compiled a list of recommendations.‬ ‭The recommendations, as follow, fall primarily into four categories: updates to language,‬ i‭mprovements to animal shelter policy, licenses and other recommendations to improve‬ ‭the welfare of dogs and cats, and measures to strengthen enforcement. Please note that in‬ ‭the course of the review of Chapter 5, the Task Force has made recommendations that fall‬ ‭outside the four corners of the Resolution, such as revisions to the regulation of exotic‬ ‭animals, and these recommendations, while not noted below, are included in Appendix C.‬ ‭The Task Force requests that the City consider these additional recommendations as well in‬ ‭order to ensure that the ordinances better reflect current societal views of animals.‬ ‭Language:‬ ‭●‬ ‭Retitle Chapter 5 “Animals”‬ ‭●‬ ‭Retitle Article II “Dogs and Cats”‬ ‭●‬ ‭Replace the term “pound” with “animal shelter” throughout‬ ‭●‬ ‭Replace the term “owner” with “guardian” throughout‬ ‭●‬ ‭Replace the term “pet” with “companion animal” throughout‬ ‭●‬ ‭Replace the term “vicious” with “dangerous” throughout‬ ‭●‬ ‭Replace “it” with “they” when used in reference to an animal throughout‬ ‭Animal shelter:‬ ‭●‬ ‭Provide an animal shelter for all species of companion animals in need‬ ‭●‬ ‭Remove option for animal shelter to sell or give away unredeemed animals, and‬ ‭restrict options to offer for adoption or transfer to cooperating animal shelter‬ ‭4‬ Page 23 of 90 ‭Dogs and cats:‬ ‭●‬ ‭Require that dogs and cats wear identification‬ ‭●‬ ‭Require that cats be licensed‬ ‭●‬ ‭Increase license fees and review the fee structure at least every 5 years‬ ‭●‬ ‭Dedicate license fees to education and other services pertinent to improved welfare‬ ‭of resident dogs and cats‬ ‭●‬ ‭Prohibit at-large cats‬ ‭Enforcement:‬ ‭●‬ ‭Provide a dedicated, certified animal control officer with investigative resources‬ ‭●‬ ‭Increase fine for violations of Chapter 5 and include restorative justice as a‬ ‭supplemental option for offenders‬ ‭●‬ ‭Require impoundment of any animal suspected of being a stray‬ ‭●‬ ‭Increase impoundment fee‬ ‭●‬ ‭Require boarding fee to reflect actual expenses‬ ‭●‬ ‭Increase fine for cruelty to animals‬ ‭●‬ ‭Add a licensed veterinarian and a certified animal behavior professional to the‬ ‭animal control committee‬ ‭●‬ ‭Allow any person to use reasonable force to remove an animal whose health or‬ ‭safety is at risk from a motor vehicle if designated officials are unavailable‬ ‭●‬ ‭Prohibit any person from leaving the scene of an accident for which they have‬ ‭reason to believe that they have caused the injury or death of an animal‬ ‭Appendix C includes a copy of Articles I, II, and III of Chapter 5 and Section 22-13 of Chapter‬ ‭22 as well as a detailed discussion of the bases for the recommendations.‬ ‭Licensing Programs and Policy Updates‬ ‭Recommendation: Improve the licensing process and dramatically increase the number‬ ‭of animals licensed in the city. Allocate a portion of the license revenues for programs‬ ‭and activities that support healthy and happy dogs and cats within the City.‬ ‭5‬ Page 24 of 90 ‭The Task Force found that Burlington was under licensing dogs compared to neighboring‬ ‭communities. Licensing is an important means of monitoring the overall health of the City’s‬ ‭dogs with respect to rabies, and thus reducing transmission of this virus. Rabies, once‬ ‭symptoms appear, is fatal to humans and animals. In addition, treatment is expensive,‬ ‭painful and occurs over multiple visits. Further, licensing facilitates returning animals to‬ ‭their guardians quickly and efficiently, which reduces stress on the animals and saves City‬ ‭resources for other needs.‬ ‭The Task Force performed a detailed review of licensing data and trends and found that‬ l‭icensing rates in Burlington are very low compared to neighboring cities with smaller‬ ‭populations. The 2022 rate of licensing in Burlington is estimated at 11%. The practices of‬ ‭the neighboring community of South Burlington, which has an estimated 35% licensing rate‬ ‭for dogs, were compared with Burlington’s practices.‬ ‭In the course of the Task Forces research, it was apparent that there are no dedicated‬ ‭funds for the development of parks resources for animals and their guardians. With some‬ ‭effort to improve licensing numbers, revenue increases for the city could be significant‬ ‭enough to fund additional programs and activities that support healthy and happy dogs‬ ‭and cats within the City. Examples of these programs are listed below.‬ ‭The Task Force overwhelmingly recognized the importance of improving and expanding‬ l‭icensing within Burlington. The Task Force recommends that the City’s licensing programs‬ ‭be strengthened and expanded as follows:‬ I‭mprove licensing compliance‬ ‭●‬ ‭Expand outreach and awareness to increase the number of animals licensed‬ ‭●‬ ‭Educate the community about how the licensing funds are used, and the benefits of‬ l‭icensing (e.g. community health - rabies vaccination ensured)‬ ‭○‬ ‭This information should be provided when an animal is licensed‬ ‭●‬ ‭Require cats to be licensed (see next recommendation)‬ ‭●‬ ‭Expand the consequences for not licensing dogs and cats‬ ‭○‬ ‭Increase penalties (see Appendix C, Chapter 5 Article III )‬ ‭6‬ Page 25 of 90  ‭○‬ ‭Work with landlords and housing associations to encourage licensing‬ ‭requirements in lease/HOA agreements. Less funding for resident‬ ‭companion animal programs‬ ‭●‬ ‭Require at-large animals be licensed before they are returned to their guardian‬ ‭●‬ ‭Require animal control officers to verify licenses when responding to incidents and‬ ‭record that information in the incident report‬ ‭●‬ ‭Grant the police real-time access to licensing information to increase the ease of‬ ‭rabies verification in the event of a bite.‬ ‭Use the resulting increase in licensing revenues to create a special fund‬ ‭The fund would support:‬ ‭●‬ ‭Annual licensing efforts‬ ‭●‬ ‭Development of a streamlined process to share licensing data‬ ‭●‬ ‭Improved incident reporting and data tracking and improved responsiveness from‬ ‭police‬ ‭●‬ ‭Additional companion animal programs and education‬ ‭●‬ ‭Low-cost spay/neuter services‬ ‭●‬ ‭Additional park facilities for animals‬ ‭Appendix D includes detailed research and discussion of the bases for these‬ ‭recommendations.‬ ‭Cats: Licensing and Prohibition of At-Large Cats‬ ‭Recommendation: Require cats to be licensed and prohibit at-large cats.‬ ‭The Task Force recommends that the City of Burlington require cats be licensed for their‬ ‭own welfare and that of other animals, to aid in identification for animal control purposes,‬ ‭and to better ensure public safety.‬ ‭Burlington would not be the first to do so, as both South Burlington and Shelburne require‬ ‭cats to be licensed. The many benefits of licensing are enumerated in Appendix C under‬ ‭the‬‭discussion of Article II, sections 5-16 and 5-14‬,‭‬‭and‬‭include improving the health of cats‬ ‭7‬ Page 26 of 90 ‭and reducing the number of cats who are lost with no way to identify the guardian.‬ ‭Increased revenues from licensing could also help support better responsiveness to‬ ‭cat-related incidents, as well as support affordable spay/neuter options for low-income‬ ‭residents.‬ ‭The Task Force also recommends that the City prohibit at-large cats, that is cats that are‬ ‭off-premise and not restrained by their guardian. Free roaming cats are more likely to‬ ‭experience disease and both accidental and intentional injuries as well as fatalities, and‬ ‭thus have shorter life spans (this is reflected in City data where 50 percent of reports about‬ ‭cats pertained to cats who had been found deceased, and of those, 75% were found in‬ ‭roadways). Cats permitted to roam off-premises can easily become nuisances on both‬ ‭public and private property and are classified as such in some neighboring municipal‬ ‭ordinances. Further, free-roaming cats are well documented in the scientific literature as‬ i‭mmensely destructive to wildlife, particularly birds.‬ ‭●‬ ‭Implement ordinance recommendation regarding licensing cats and prohibiting‬ ‭at-large cats as per the Ordinance Update recommendation‬ ‭For a more detailed discussion, see Appendix C, Article II, Discussion.‬ ‭Reporting, Enforcement & Compliance‬ ‭Recommendation: Improve the reporting, compliance and enforcement of animal-related‬ ‭ordinances by creating the position of Animal Control Officer at the Police Department‬ ‭and adding professional experts to the Animal Control Committee.‬ ‭The Task Force reviewed reporting, compliance and enforcement of dog related‬ ‭ordinances.‬ ‭This included reviewing reporting mechanisms, social media, Front Porch Forum, and police‬ ‭department data for incidents such as off-leash dogs, aggressive dogs, attacks by dogs, as‬ ‭well as responses by the Burlington Police Department (BPD). Data obtained from the BPD‬ l‭ikely reflects only a small portion of the actual incidents that involve animals in the‬ ‭community. Because residents may be aware of the narrow scope of the Department's‬ ‭8‬ Page 27 of 90 ‭work on these issues, as detailed below, it can be assumed that many residents do not‬ ‭bother to report animal incidents and thus there is no record created.‬ ‭Currently the City’s Community Service Officers (CSO) respond to dog and rabies vector‬ ‭related calls for service. Incidents that are called in are responded to and are documented‬ i‭n incident reports. Depending upon the follow-up required, incidents may be responded to‬ ‭over several shifts. CSOs have many other responsibilities besides responding to animal‬ i‭ncidents. If there is a higher priority incident such as a car accident, their attention may be‬ ‭focused on those. Additionally CSOs’ responsibilities are limited to responding to‬ ‭dog-related reports and to reports about rabies vectors. Therefore concerns about cats or‬ ‭other animal types besides dogs are referred to other organizations such as the Humane‬ ‭Society of Chittenden County or to a wildlife removal service.‬ ‭The Task Force recognizes the work that the CSOs perform everyday, but strongly‬ ‭recommends that a part- to full time animal control officer be hired by the City.‬ ‭An animal control officer (ACO) also responds to incidents, but in addition proactively‬ ‭enforces ordinances (such as leash laws) and oversees the overall health and safety of‬ ‭animals within the City. An ACO would have specific and ongoing training and certification‬ i‭n the handling and welfare of animals, be able to perform inspections on and monitor‬ ‭facilities that shelter animals, educate the public on how to care for animals, and‬ i‭nvestigate trends and repeat problems or animals, conduct in-depth investigations and‬ ‭overall be a point person and resource for the Burlington community.‬ ‭To improve compliance and enforcement of ordinances, the Task Force recommends the‬ ‭following:‬ ‭●‬ ‭Create a position at the Police Department of Animal Control Officer‬ ‭●‬ ‭Ensure personnel that are involved in animal welfare & enforcement of the Animals‬ ‭Ordinances have proper training and access to updated licensing information‬ ‭●‬ ‭Increase education to improve community awareness on how to report incidents‬ ‭effectively‬ ‭●‬ ‭Expand online incident reporting categories to include animal issues and ensure‬ i‭ssues are assigned to responsive entities within City operations‬ ‭9‬ Page 28 of 90  ‭●‬ ‭Recommend adding licensed veterinarian and certified animal behavior professional‬ ‭to animal control committee‬ ‭●‬ ‭Improve organization and categorization of data as it relates to incident‬ ‭reporting/tracking‬ ‭See‬‭Appendix I‬‭for a summary of animal incidents reported‬‭to police and how they were‬ ‭typically addressed/resolved, per the report data available.‬ ‭Off Leash Areas‬ ‭Recommendation: Establish a policy for off-leash dogs that includes the management and‬ ‭creation of fenced and unfenced off-leash dog areas at a limited number of locations; and‬ ‭recommend BPRW conduct a pilot project to test unfenced off-leash areas for dogs.‬ ‭Currently, it is against City ordinances to allow a dog off leash anywhere in the city, except‬ i‭n two fenced-in dog parks and one unfenced beach area. Areas in which dogs may be‬ ‭off-leash comprise a total of 3.5 out of the 520 acres of City Parks (less than 1% of all park‬ l‭and). Many Burlington dog guardians allow their dogs off leash indiscriminately on‬ ‭Burlington’s trails and in parks and the City’s enforcement of current leash laws is weak to‬ ‭non-existent. The committee researched potential locations, looked at programs in‬ j‭urisdictions throughout the US for best practices and conducted a City-wide survey. There‬ i‭s a strong desire from dog guardians to have easy access to off-leash areas.‬ ‭Our parks are a limited resource, and while more areas could be fenced in for dogs, this‬ ‭would exclude regular park goers from this valuable space.‬ ‭The Off-Leash Areas recommendations, as follow, satisfy the need to create space in our‬ ‭urban environments where dogs may play freely and the desire not to fence off all of our‬ ‭parks for dogs, while providing a mechanism to better regulate and manage spaces where‬ ‭dogs are off-leash. By providing sufficient sanctioned off-leash spaces for dogs to play,‬ ‭explore, and run, the City may focus on the enforcement of regulations requiring dogs be‬ ‭on a leash otherwise within the City’s system of parks and recreation paths, protecting all‬ ‭users and our urban wildlife.‬ ‭10‬ Page 29 of 90 ‭The Task Force recommends increasing designated off-leash spaces while simultaneously‬ i‭ncreasing the enforcement of leash laws in the rest of the city. The goal is to ensure‬ ‭healthy and safe access to appropriate outdoor space for dogs across the City and to‬ ‭support enforcement of inappropriate spaces where dogs should not be off leash.‬ ‭●‬ ‭Update the City ordinances with a new‬‭Section 7 of‬‭Appendix D‬‭which will add one‬ ‭fenced off-leash dog area to Oakledge, formalize the two existing off-leash fenced‬ ‭dog areas, and provide the parks department with regulations and the ability to‬ ‭enforce these regulations.‬ ‭●‬ ‭Establish an‬‭Off-Leash Dog Policy‬‭with oversight by‬‭the Parks Commission‬ ‭●‬ ‭Create a pilot program of off-leash dog areas, as drafted in the‬‭Off-Leash Dog Policy‬ i‭n Appendix F‬ ‭The list of pilot areas in the‬‭Off-Leash Dog Policy‬ ‭came from a review of prior committee‬ ‭work (see Appendix K), current parks programming and usage, and survey results‬ ‭(Appendix I). Considerable thought was given to how to avoid clashes, including the‬ ‭following:‬ ‭●‬ ‭Clear signage indicating designated off-leash areas & rules for using these spaces.‬ ‭●‬ ‭A landing page on Burlington Parks Recreation Waterfront (BPRW) website showing‬ ‭where dogs can and can’t go, and where they must be kept on-leash.‬ ‭Education Campaign‬ ‭Recommendation: Create and expand an annual calendar of education outreach,‬ ‭activities and parks-based events to reduce issues and conflicts around domestic animals‬ ‭while celebrating the joy they bring to Burlington’s residents.‬ ‭The Burlington Dog Task Force worked with the Parks & Recreation Department to support‬ ‭the education campaigns and events, including:‬ ‭❖‬ ‭Barking contribution to noise pollution, and solutions to unwanted barking, posted‬ ‭on 2/16/2023‬ ‭❖‬ ‭On leash in natural areas, posted on 5/18/22‬ ‭11‬ Page 30 of 90  ‭❖‬ ‭Scoop the Poop campaign, posted on 4/1/22‬ ‭❖‬ ‭Dog License education, posted 3/22/23‬ ‭❖‬ ‭Wag the Waterfront event‬ ‭The Burlington Dog Task Force has created a draft‬ ‭calendar with suggested educational posts for social‬ ‭media and Front Porch Forum, as well as sample‬ ‭campaigns, as included in‬‭Appendix H‬‭. Additional‬ ‭educational ideas included the following:‬ ‭❖‬ ‭“Having a dog in Burlington” literature‬ ‭handed out when a license is first issued‬ ‭❖‬ ‭More signage similar to what BPRW posted‬ ‭on the bike path during the summer of 2023‬ ‭(see image on the right).‬ ‭❖‬ ‭Recommend that a web page on the city’s‬ ‭website is developed that goes over‬ ‭everything to do with dogs and cats: rules,‬ ‭how and why to license, off leash rules, off‬ l‭eash areas. Then this site can be referenced‬ ‭and linked to. (signs have QR codes leading‬ ‭to this page)‬ ‭❖‬ ‭How/when to report issues‬ ‭❖‬ ‭Impact of outdoor cats on wildlife‬ ‭❖‬ ‭Low cost spay/neuter options‬ ‭The Task Force recommends the following‬ ‭educational steps be taken by the City:‬ ‭●‬ ‭Follow an annual calendar of automatic‬ ‭social media posts/news releases (see‬ ‭appendix for content subjects)‬ ‭●‬ ‭Hold annual programs in parks such as the‬ ‭recent “Wag the Waterfront”.‬ ‭●‬ ‭Provide behavioral learning opportunities to animals and their companions‬ ‭12‬ Page 31 of 90  ‭●‬ ‭Provide resources for new arrivals (either new residents of Burlington who have‬ ‭dogs, or current residents who get a new dog) on on and off leash areas,‬ ‭regulations, general “good neighbor” guidelines and wellness resources‬ ‭●‬ ‭Install signage on guidelines for behavior of dogs in designated off-leash areas‬ ‭●‬ ‭Distribute education/information/tips annually on the cards that accompany dog‬ l‭icense tags‬ ‭●‬ ‭Develop a curriculum for the community justice center, should a restorative justice‬ ‭approach be adopted for resolving violations of dog policies & ordinances‬ ‭13‬ Page 32 of 90 ‭Appendices‬ ‭Appendix A: Council Resolution‬ ‭On March 30, 2021 the New North End City Councilors (Barlow, Carpenter, and Dieng),‬ ‭South End City Councilor Shannon, and Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Director Wight‬ ‭hosted an informative and constructive meeting with city residents to better understand‬ ‭pet issues beyond complaints shared on social media. This led to a Burlington City Council‬ ‭resolution on June 28 to create a Burlington Dog Task Force to address these issues. Dog‬ ‭Task Force members were officially appointed on November 17, 2021 by the PAC and the‬ ‭first meeting of the Task Force convened on January 27, 2022. The original resolution is‬ ‭copied below.‬ ‭The scope of work included a mix of actions for implementation and policy‬ ‭recommendations.‬ ‭HRB/Resolutions 2021/BURLINGTON PARKS ARTS AND CULTURE COMMITTEE TO CREATE A‬ ‭DOG TASK FORCE 7/8/2021‬ ‭CITY OF BURLINGTON‬ ‭In the year Two Thousand Twenty-one‬ ‭Resolved by the City Council of the City of Burlington, as follows:‬ ‭BURLINGTON PARKS ARTS AND CULTURE COMMITTEE TO CREATE A DOG TASK FORCE‬ ‭That WHEREAS, According to the City Charter, a dog is defined as the following: Dogs shall‬ i‭nclude both male and female of the canine species. Dog shall also mean any animal which‬ i‭s considered to be a wolf-hybrid as defined in 20 V.S.A. § 3541(6).‬ ‭WHEREAS, Dogs are considered an integral part of our society, playing different roles and‬ ‭providing services in the daily lives of humans, such as for accessibility, companionship,‬ ‭exercise, security and more.‬ ‭14‬ Page 33 of 90 ‭WHEREAS, Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a service animal is a dog that‬ ‭has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability,‬ i‭ncluding a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability.‬ ‭WHEREAS, According to the American Society for the Prevention of Animal Cruelty (ASPCA),‬ ‭dog adoptions are up 700% nationally during the pandemic.‬ ‭WHEREAS, According to the City of Burlington Parks, Recreation and Waterfront website,‬ ‭“The State of Vermont has one of the highest rates of pet ownership around the nation, the‬ ‭City of Burlington has made possible for community members to share their experiences in‬ ‭many different locations in the greater Burlington Area.”‬ ‭WHEREAS, The City of Burlington issued 755 dog licenses and collected over $23,000 in dog‬ l‭icense revenue for the 2020 fiscal year.‬ ‭WHEREAS, The City of Burlington via the Department of Parks, Recreation and Waterfront‬ ‭has made a substantial investment in the renovation of the Starr Farm Dog Park located in‬ ‭the New North End.‬ ‭WHEREAS, Over the past few months, residents of the New North End alongside other‬ ‭residents of the city have shared via social media (Front Porch Forum, Facebook) a growing‬ ‭number of incidents involving dogs or dog owners. The incidents were reported by both‬ ‭dog owners, former dog owners or nondog owners.‬ ‭WHEREAS, Most of those incidents are similar in nature; some are unique incidents that‬ ‭resulted in a decreased quality of life and have caused tensions between neighbors. Those‬ i‭ncidents include but are not limited to the following:‬ ‭● Off leash dogs in city parks, natural areas or beaches‬ ‭● Dogs attacking people or other dogs‬ ‭● Dog feces not being picked up‬ ‭● Policies not being enforced‬ ‭● Unlicensed dogs‬ ‭● Dog barking contributing to noise pollution‬ ‭15‬ Page 34 of 90 ‭WHEREAS, Several other issues involving other types of pets in the city were also shared by‬ ‭community members.‬ ‭WHEREAS, On Tuesday, March 30th the New North End City Councilors, Barlow, Carpenter‬ ‭and Dieng, hosted an informative and constructive community meeting alongside South‬ ‭End District City Councilor Shannon and Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Director Wight in‬ ‭order to better understand the pet issue beyond the complaints shared on social media.‬ ‭WHEREAS, The Community meeting was well attended and received by the community. The‬ ‭attendance ranged from people of the South End, Old North End and New North End. Most‬ ‭attendees were dog owners or former dog owners as well as non-dog owners, nature‬ l‭overs, dog park volunteers and professionals working with pets.‬ ‭WHEREAS, Residents who attended the community meeting brainstormed ideas and best‬ ‭practices related to these issues and are willing to formally help the city in an ongoing way.‬ ‭WHEREAS, The Burlington City Council, via a resolution, respectfully tasked the Parks, Arts‬ ‭and Culture Committee to make a recommendation via a resolution by June 28th to the‬ ‭Council regarding the creation of a Burlington Dog Task Force to address the issues raised‬ i‭n this resolution and possibly other issues.‬ ‭WHEREAS, The Parks, Arts and Culture Committee, in consultation with the Director of‬ ‭Parks, Recreation and Waterfront and the Starr Farm Dog Park Volunteer Coordinator,‬ ‭developed the following recommendations for a nine (9) member task force and their‬ ‭scope of work.‬ ‭NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, The nine-member Dog Task Force shall be composed of‬ ‭the following members:‬ ‭1)‬ ‭Starr Farm Dog Park Volunteer Coordinator‬ ‭2)‬ ‭Representative of a dog shelter, dog rescue group or other dog group to be‬ ‭appointed by PACC‬ ‭3)‬ ‭Dog trainer to be appointed by PACC‬ ‭4)‬ ‭Veterinarian or animal health professional to be appointed by PACC‬ ‭16‬ Page 35 of 90  ‭5)‬ ‭Burlington Police Department Community Resource Office representative to be‬ ‭designated by the Chief of Police‬ ‭6)‬ ‭Burlington Parks, Recreation and Waterfront representative (staff with land use or‬ ‭event planning expertise) to be designated by the BPRW director‬ ‭7)‬ ‭At large Burlington community member who is a non-dog owner to be appointed by‬ ‭PACC‬ ‭8)‬ ‭At large Burlington community member who is a dog owner to be appointed by‬ ‭PACC‬ ‭9)‬ ‭A representative of the Parks Commission to be appointed by the Parks Commission‬ ‭Chair‬ ‭BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, Parks Director will create an application for task force‬ ‭membership.‬ ‭Applications will be received by the Clerk/Treasurer’s Office until August 31, 2021. PACC‬ ‭appointed members shall be selected by the Parks, Arts and Culture Committee at their‬ ‭September meeting‬ ‭BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, The Parks, Art and Culture Committee recommends the‬ ‭following:‬ ‭A.‬ ‭That the Dog Task Force members elect a Chair as their first order of business in‬ ‭their first meeting; and the Director of Burlington Parks and Recreations and‬ ‭Waterfront to identify an administrative staff to the taskforce‬ ‭B.‬ ‭That the following be within the Dog Task Force’s scope of work:‬ ‭1)‬ ‭Review current city programs and policies including other dog task force‬ ‭work.‬ ‭2)‬ ‭Conduct an Education Campaign:‬ ‭a)‬ ‭Off leash dogs in city parks, natural areas or beaches‬ ‭b)‬ ‭Dogs attacking people or other dogs‬ ‭c)‬ ‭Dog feces not being picked up‬ ‭d)‬ ‭Dog barking contributing to noise pollution‬ ‭3)‬ ‭Review licensing rules and make recommendations‬ ‭a)‬ ‭Review licensing fees and make recommendations‬ ‭b)‬ ‭Explore modernizing license fee applications‬ ‭17‬ Page 36 of 90  ‭c)‬ ‭Consider the question of licensing of outdoor cats‬ ‭4)‬ ‭Review compliance and policy enforcement and make recommendations‬ ‭5)‬ ‭Plan Pet/Dog Events, Activities and Celebrations, i.e., National Pet Day or‬ ‭National Dog Day Celebration‬ ‭6)‬ ‭Review current funding allocated to our municipal dog/pet resources and‬ ‭make recommendations‬ ‭7)‬ ‭Provide quarterly updates to the Parks, Arts, and Culture Committee‬ ‭8)‬ ‭Generate a final report to be presented to the City Council by April 29, 2022‬ ‭18‬ Page 37 of 90 ‭Appendix B: Committee Members & Staff Participants‬ ‭The full Task Force met monthly, with subcommittees and working groups collaborating in‬ ‭additional meetings as-needed.‬ ‭Table 1. Appointed Members and City Staff‬ ‭Appointed Members‬ ‭City Staff‬ ‭Jake Schumann, Chair through 10/24/2022‬ ‭Cindi Wight, BPRW Director‬ ‭(Position 1)‬ ‭Lori Kettler (Position 2)‬ ‭Meghan O’Daniel, BPRW Staff‬ ‭Maria Karunungan, Chair 10/24/2022‬ ‭forward (Position 3)‬ ‭Nina Hurley (Position 4)‬ ‭Dominic Tenan (Position 5, Reassigned)‬ ‭Yusuf Abdi (Position 5, Reassigned)‬ ‭Thomas Young (Position 5)‬ ‭Alec Kaeding (Position 6)‬ ‭Ilona Blanchard (Position 7)‬ ‭Ute Montensen (Resigned, Position 8)‬ ‭Joanne Kalisz (Replaced, Position 8)‬ ‭Abbey Duke (Position 9)‬ ‭19‬ Page 38 of 90 ‭Appendix C: Proposed Amendments to City Ordinances‬ ‭Proposed Amendments to Article I of Chapter 5‬ ‭The Task Force’s recommended amendments are inserted and underlined, and text that‬ ‭would be eliminated is indicated by strikethroughs.‬ ‭ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL‬ ‭5-1 ‬‭Pound‬‭established‬‭Animal shelter provided‬‭.‬ ‭There shall be‬‭established‬‭provided‬‭by the city council‬‭a pound‬‭an animal shelter‬‭for‬‭the‬ i‭mpounding of all beasts‬‭all domestic and exotic animals‬‭in need‬‭liable to be impounded‬‭.‬ ‭(Ord. of 6-23-97)‬ ‭5-2 Appointment of‬‭poundkeepers; compensation‬‭animal‬ ‭shelter personnel‬‭.‬ ‭It shall be the duty of the mayor to appoint such‬‭poundkeepers‬‭persons‬‭as may be required to‬ ‭take care of and keep such pound as may be‬‭manage‬‭and maintain the animal shelter that is‬ ‭established‬‭pursuant to section 5-1‬‭.‬‭Their compensation‬‭shall be the same as provided by the‬ l‭aws of this state for poundkeepers in towns.‬ ‭(Ord. of 6-23-97)‬ ‭Cross reference—Duties of officers of the city, § ‬‭2-4‬‭.‬ ‭5-2a Appointment of animal control officer‬ ‭It shall be the duty of the mayor to appoint an enforcement officer(s), in accordance with‬ ‭section 122 of the city charter, who shall be a member of the Burlington Police Department.‬ ‭Such enforcement officer(s) shall be a certified animal control officer.‬ ‭5-3 Animal bites.‬ ‭It shall be the duty of every person bitten, or his or her parent or guardian, and the attending‬ ‭physicians to report to the‬‭city health officer‬‭animal‬‭control officer, who shall report to the city‬ ‭health officer,‬‭within twenty-four (24) hours the‬‭name, address and telephone number of the‬ ‭owner‬‭guardian‬‭or keeper of the animal‬‭which‬‭who‬‭bit‬‭the person and the complete‬ ‭circumstances,‬‭to the extent known‬‭.‬ ‭20‬ Page 39 of 90 ‭(Ord. of 6-23-97)‬ ‭5-4 Nuisance animals.‬ ‭(a)‬‭No‬‭owner‬‭guardian‬,‭ keeper or other person having‬‭control shall permit an animal to be a‬ ‭nuisance animal. For the purposes of this section, nuisance animal means any animal or‬ ‭animals‬‭which‬‭who‬‭:‬ ‭(1) ‬‭Molests‬‭Attacks‬‭or harasses passersby or passing‬‭vehicles, or otherwise creates a‬ ‭public safety hazard;‬ ‭(2) Attacks other animals‬,‭ including but not limited‬‭to wildlife‬‭;‬ ‭(3) Damages property other than that of‬‭their‬ i‭ts owner‬‭guardian‬‭;‬ ‭(4) Defecates off the premises of the animal’s‬‭owner‬‭guardian‬,‭ and the‬‭owner‬‭guardian‬,‭‬ ‭or other individual in control of the animal, fails to remove such deposit immediately;‬ ‭(5) Roams off the premises of the guardian while not under control of the guardian, or‬ ‭the guardian’s agent, by leash or other similar means of physical restraint at all times; or‬ ‭(‭‬5‬‭6‬‭) Barks, whines, howls, cries, or makes a noise‬‭commonly made by such animals in‬ ‭an excessive and continuous fashion so as to disturb the peace and quiet of any other‬ ‭person.‬ ‭(b) Any dog or cat found to be a nuisance animal by an animal control officer shall be‬ i‭mpounded if the guardian, or the guardian’s agent, is not present and cannot be located‬ i‭mmediately.‬ ‭(Ord. of 6-23-97; Ord. of 10-23-06, eff. 11-22-06)‬ ‭5-5 Exotic animals.‬ ‭(a) ‭‬Purpose and findings:‬‭The purpose of this section‬‭is to enhance the public safety of persons‬ ‭who are present on the district known as the Church Street Marketplace (the Marketplace) and‬ i‭n the city’s parks by regulating the presence of "exotic" animals on the Marketplace and in the‬ ‭city’s parks. The council finds that such pets can pose a threat to the public health, safety, and‬ ‭welfare if present on the Marketplace and in city parks. Such pets are unlicensed and are not‬ ‭typically leashed, as is required of domestic dogs.‬ ‭(b) ‬‭Definitions:‬‭"Exotic pet" means all animals‬‭except domestic dogs, domestic cats and the‬ ‭European ferret ‬‭(Mustela putorious furo).‬ ‭(c) ‬‭General prohibition:‬‭No person shall have an‬‭exotic pet or permit their exotic pet to be on‬ ‭or about the Marketplace or within a city park unless expressly approved by the Marketplace‬ ‭Director or Parks Department respectively or exempted under the terms of this section.‬ ‭21‬ Page 40 of 90 ‭(d) ‬‭Exemptions:‬‭A person may have or permit an exotic pet to be on or about the Marketplace‬ ‭or within a city park when done to transport the pet directly from a pet store in the vicinity of‬ ‭the Marketplace or city park after purchase of such pet or to return such pet to said pet store.‬ ‭The person must retain a receipt for the purchase of such pet and shall display the receipt upon‬ ‭demand from any animal control officer, law enforcement officer, or other person duly‬ ‭authorized to enforce animal control ordinances.‬ ‭(a)‬ ‭Purpose and findings‬‭: The city recognizes that‬‭the keeping of exotic animals raises animal‬ ‭welfare concerns and public health and safety concerns not commonly associated with‬ ‭domesticated animals. This section is intended to prevent mistreatment of exotic animals,‬ ‭reduce the risk of harm to the public from contact with exotic animals as well as accidents and‬ ‭other incidents involving such animals, and reduce the public health risk associated with‬ ‭diseases and pathogens carried by such animals.‬ ‭(b)‬ ‭Definitions‬‭: “Exotic animal” means all animals‬‭except domestic dogs, domestic cats,‬ ‭domestic mice, domestic rats, domestic rabbits, gerbils, hamsters, guinea pigs, the European‬ ‭ferret, and livestock as defined by Title 6, section 791 of the Vermont Statutes.‬ ‭(c)‬ ‭Prohibition‬‭: The offer for sale, sale, purchase,‬‭possession, or public display of any exotic‬ ‭animal within the corporate limits of the city is prohibited.‬ ‭(d)‬ ‭Exemptions‬‭: Any exotic animal possessed on the‬‭date of the enactment of this ordinance is‬ ‭exempted from the prohibition on possession set forth in subsection (c) upon registration of‬ ‭the animal with the Board of Health. The exemption applies only to the individual animal so‬ ‭registered, and does not apply to any animal of the same species subsequently acquired. The‬ ‭prohibition set forth in subsection (c) shall not apply to registered 501(c)(3) organizations whose‬ ‭primary purpose is education, animal rescue, or animal rehabilitation.‬ ‭(Ord. of 10-27-03, eff. 12-3-03)‬ ‭5-6 Use of non-domesticated animals for public display‬ ‭prohibited.‬ ‭(a) ‭‬Purpose.‬‭This section is intended to assist‬‭in the prevention of the mistreatment of‬ ‭non-domesticated animals used in any public display, to reduce risk of harm to the public from‬ ‭accidents and incidents involving such animals, and to reduce the public health risk associated‬ ‭with diseases and pathogens carried by such animals.‬ ‭(b) ‬‭Definitions.‬ ‭(1) ‬‭Non-domesticated animals‬‭are defined as ‬‭Felidae‬‭(all‬‭wild cats and hybrids‬ ‭thereof), ‬‭Ursidae‬‭(all bears), ‬‭Proboscideae‬‭(all elephants),‬‭and Non-human Primates‬ ‭and ‭‬Prosimians.‬ ‭(2) ‬‭Public display‬‭shall mean the exhibition, presentation‬‭or showing of live‬ ‭non-domesticated animals to the general public regardless of whether for profit, on a not‬ ‭for profit basis or without charge.‬ ‭22‬ Page 41 of 90 ‭(c) ‬‭Prohibition.‬‭The public display of live non-domesticated animals within the corporate limits‬ ‭of the city is prohibited.‬ ‭(Ord. of 9-7-04; eff. 10-13-04)‬ ‭5-‬‭7‬‭6‬‭—5-12 Reserved.‬ ‭Discussion‬ ‭Section 5-1‬ ‭The current language of section 5-1 requires the city to provide an animal shelter that‬ ‭accepts “all beasts liable to be impounded.” It is the Task Force’s understanding that the city‬ ‭has previously contracted only for the impoundment of dogs in need. The Task Force‬ ‭recommends that the city provide a shelter for all domesticated and exotic animal‬ ‭residents in need.‬ ‭Section 5-2a‬ ‭Section 5-2a is a new section that requires the appointment of a dedicated, certified animal‬ ‭control officer, or officers, within the Burlington Police Department (“BPD”).‬ ‭Currently, limited animal control functions are performed by the community service‬ ‭officers at the BPD. Community service officers are not required to have experience or‬ ‭training specific to animal control functions, such as animal handling, care, and welfare.‬1 ‭The Task Force recommends that the city retain an officer, or officers, whose sole duty is to‬ ‭respond to animal-related issues and to expand the program so that the city’s animals and‬ ‭citizens are better served in this regard. To achieve that goal, the Task Force recommends‬ ‭that animal control officers obtain certification in animal control and be required to‬ ‭participate in continuing education courses, through a national professional training‬ ‭program.‬ ‭1‬ ‭See‬‭City of Burlington, Community Service Officer‬‭Job Description,‬ ‭https://www.governmentjobs.com/careers/burlingtonvt/jobs/3045625/community-service-officer‬‭..‬ ‭23‬ Page 42 of 90 ‭The National Animal Care and Control Association (“NACA”) recognizes the difficulty in‬ ‭determining the optimum number of animal control officers for any particular locality.‬2 ‭The‬ ‭calculation is affected by a number of factors such as the number of calls for service, officer‬ ‭safety, citizen safety, types of services provided, population density and diversity, and‬ ‭coverage area.‬3 ‭Assessment of the number of officers required to address the animal control needs in‬ ‭Burlington is further complicated by the fact that calls for service may not accurately reflect‬ ‭the need for an animal control officer. For example, residents may be aware that the BPD‬ ‭does not respond to calls regarding free-roaming cats and, as a result, they do not place‬ ‭such calls for service.‬ ‭Studies and other evidence suggest that most cities with a population similar to that of‬ ‭Burlington (approximately 44,000 residents) employ or contract with at least one animal‬ ‭control officer.‬4 ‭In Vermont, an online search reveals that many smaller and less diverse municipalities have‬ ‭at least one animal control officer who may be part- or full-time, employed, contracted, or‬ i‭n a few instances a volunteer. A partial list includes Barre, Bolton, Brattleboro, Castleton,‬ ‭East Montpelier (2 officers), Fairfax, Guilford, Hartland, Highgate, Hyde Park (2 officers),‬ ‭Newfane, Putney, Randolph, Readsboro, Rockingham, Sharon, Shelburne, Shaftsbury,‬ ‭Waterbury, and Windham.‬ ‭Section 5-4‬ ‭Section 5-4 expands the definition of “nuisance animals” to include free-roaming animals. It‬ ‭also authorizes law enforcement to impound a “nuisance animal” if the animal’s guardian,‬ ‭or the guardian’s agent, is not present or readily located, and it requires impoundment of‬ ‭free-roaming animals under such conditions.‬ ‭2‬ ‭National Animal Care and Control Association, “Determining Field Staffing Needs,”‬ ‭https://www.nacanet.org/determining-field-staffing-needs/‬‭.‬ ‭3‬ ‭Id‬‭.‬ ‭4‬ ‭For example, a study conducted by NACA found the average ratio of field animal control officers to citizens was‬ ‭one officer for every 16,000 to 18,000 persons.‬‭https://www.sheltertrak.com/downloads/kern/kcac_audit/4.pdf‬‭.‬ ‭Private online discussion groups for animal control officers across the country suggest similar statistics. Printouts on‬ ‭file with the author.‬ ‭24‬ Page 43 of 90 ‭Section 5-5‬ ‭Section 5-5 replaces the ban on exotic animals on Church Street Marketplace and in city‬ ‭parks with a city-wide ban on the offer for sale, sale, purchase, possession, or public display‬ ‭of exotic animals, with a grandfather clause for animals currently possessed, and‬ ‭exceptions for certain 501(c)(3) organizations.‬ ‭The Task Force recognizes that the proposed amendment falls outside the scope of its‬ ‭mandate but wishes to take this opportunity to point out that societal views on the keeping‬ ‭of exotic animals have changed markedly in the last decade as we have learned more about‬ ‭these animals. It is now well accepted that the complex needs of exotic animals cannot be‬ ‭met in captivity, even by the most well-meaning guardians,‬5 ‭and that the exotic animal‬ ‭trade itself is a source of much suffering.‬6 ‭The environmental impact of the exotic pet trade can be severe as well, often having a‬ ‭devastating effect on wild populations of the species traded. For example, it is estimated‬ ‭that every year 21% of the wild population of African Grey parrots, a popular “pet” and an‬ ‭endangered species, are poached.‬7 ‭Exotic pets released into the wild when their novelty wears off, or when they become too‬ ‭expensive or too difficult to handle, can wreak havoc on native flora and fauna. Perhaps the‬ ‭most well-known examples of this problem are the Burmese pythons and green iguanas in‬ ‭Florida.‬8 ‭Vermont is not immune to invasive species, and it is projected that as the climate‬ ‭continues to warm some invasive species, such as red-eared slider turtles commonly sold‬ i‭n local pet stores, will survive and establish breeding populations in the state.‬9 ‭5‬ ‭Exotic animals, even those bred in captivity, still possess innate social and physical needs, and require mental‬ ‭stimulation that cannot be provided in private homes.‬‭See‬‭, Progressive Animal Welfare Society, “Exotic‬‭Pets,”‬ ‭https://www.paws.org/resources/exotic-animals/‬‭.‬ ‭6‬ ‭E.g‬‭., World Animal Protection, “7 Reasons Why You‬‭Shouldn’t Keep Wild Animals as Exotic Pets,”‬ ‭https://www.worldanimalprotection.ca/news/7-reasons-why-you-shouldnt-keep-wildlife-pets‬‭;‬‭Born Free U.S., “The‬ ‭Dangers of Keeping Exotic Pets,”‬ ‭https://www.bornfreeusa.org/campaigns/animals-in-captivity/the-dangers-of-keeping-exotic-pets/‬‭.‬ ‭7‬ ‭Id‬‭., World Animal Protection.‬ ‭8‬ ‭Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission, “Burmese Python,”‬ ‭https://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/profiles/reptiles/snakes/burmese-python/‬‭;‬‭Florida Fish and Wildlife‬ ‭Commission, “Green Iguana,”‬‭https://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/profiles/reptiles/green-iguana/‬‭.‬ ‭9‬ ‭Vermont Reptile & Amphibian Atlas, “Pond Slider,”‬ ‭https://www.vtherpatlas.org/herp-species-in-vermont/trachemys-scripta/‬‭.‬ ‭25‬ Page 44 of 90 ‭Aside from the animal welfare and environmental concerns, many species of exotic animals‬ ‭carry zoonotic diseases, and there are frequent reports of injuries and deaths from exotic‬ ‭animals kept as “pets,” who can retain their wild instincts even after decades of captive‬ ‭breeding.‬10 ‭All states prohibit or restrict the possession of certain exotic animals, and the latter often‬ i‭nvolves a permit, license, or registration requirement.‬11 ‭Vermont allows unrestricted‬ ‭possession of many exotic animals, such as certain species of pythons and boas, but‬ ‭requires a permit to possess other species, such as anacondas and black widow spiders.‬12 ‭As the private “ownership” of exotic animals has increased, a growing number of counties‬ ‭and municipalities across the nation have enacted ordinances to prohibit or further restrict‬ ‭the presence of exotic animals in their communities, for the safety of residents and the‬ ‭welfare of the animals.‬13 ‭For example, Rainsville Alabama’s Responsible Pet Ownership‬ ‭Ordinance prohibits the keeping of any non-domesticated, wild animal.‬14 ‭Richmond Virginia‬ ‭has a comprehensive ban on the ownership, breeding, purchase, sale, offer for purchase or‬ ‭sale, keeping or maintenance of all exotic or wild warm-blood animals, venomous reptiles‬ ‭and amphibians, and members of the crocodilian family, with exceptions for a limited‬ ‭number of identified species who are in captivity and have never seen the wild, or who‬ ‭have been domestically bred or legally imported.‬15 ‭9‬ ‭E.g‬‭., Bruno B. Chomel, Albino Belotto, and François-Xavier‬‭Meslin, “Wildlife, Exotic Pets, and Emerging Zoonoses,”‬ ‭Emerg Infect Dis, v.13(1); 2007 Jan., available at‬‭https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2725831/‬‭, last‬ ‭accessed Sept. 23, 2023.‬ ‭10‬ ‭E.g‬‭., People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,‬‭“Reptile Incidents,”‬ ‭https://www.peta.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/reptile-incidents-factsheet.pdf‬‭.‬ ‭11‬ ‭Findlaw, “Exotic Animal Laws by State,”‬ ‭https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/exotic-animal-laws-by-state.html‬‭.‬ ‭12‬ ‭Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, “Unrestricted Wild Animal List” and “Restricted Wild Animal List,”‬ ‭https://vtfishandwildlife.com/sites/fishandwildlife/files/documents/Learn%20More/Living%20with%20Wildlife/Im‬ ‭portation/Unrestricted_Wild_Animal_List.pdf‬‭.‬ ‭13‬ ‭See‬‭Humane Society of the United States, “Where the‬‭Wild Things Shouldn’t Be,”‬ ‭https://humanepro.org/magazine/articles/where-wild-things-shouldnt-be‬‭.‬ ‭14‬ ‭City Of Rainsville, Alabama, “Non-Domesticated, Wild Animals,” Ord. No. 5-23-13-A, sec. 10,‬ ‭http://www.rainsvillealabama.com/ordinances/Ordinance-5-23-13-A-amendment.pdf‬‭.‬ ‭15‬ ‭City of Richmond, Virginia, Ord. No. 2023-130 - Amended 20230626,‬ ‭https://library.municode.com/va/richmond/ordinances/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=1228386‬‭.‬ ‭26‬ Page 45 of 90 ‭The Task Force recommends that the city consider the proposed revisions to section 5-5 for‬ ‭the reasons stated herein.‬ ‭Section 5-6‬ ‭Section 5-5, if adopted, makes the prohibition on public display of certain‬ ‭non-domesticated animals in section 5-6 duplicative and thus unnecessary.‬ ‭27‬ Page 46 of 90 ‭Proposed Amendments to Article II of Chapter 5‬ ‭The Task Force’s recommended amendments are inserted and underlined, and text that‬ ‭would be eliminated is indicated by strikethroughs.‬ ‭ARTICLE II. DOGS‬‭AND CATS‬‭1‬ ‭5-13 Definitions.‬ ‭The following definitions shall apply to this article:‬ ‭"At-large"‬‭shall mean not under the control of the‬‭owner‬‭guardian‬,‭‬‭a member of the guardian’s‬ i‭mmediate family, or the guardian’s agent‬‭or another‬‭individual either‬‭by leash‬,‭ cord, chain‬‭or‬ ‭other similar means of physical restraint.‬ ‭"Dog"‬‭shall include both male and female of the canine‬‭species. Dog shall also mean any animal‬ ‭which‬‭who‬‭is considered to be a wolf-hybrid as defined‬‭in ‭‬20‬‭V.S.A. § ‭‬3541‬‭(6).‬ ‭“Cat”‬‭shall include both male and female of the feline‬‭species.‬ ‭"Enforcement official"‬‭when used herein shall mean‬‭any animal control officer, police officer,‬ ‭poundkeeper‬‭shelter manager‬,‭ urban park ranger or‬‭other individual specifically designated by‬ ‭the city council to enforce the provisions of this chapter.‬ ‭"‭‬Owner‬‭Guardian" ‭‬shall include any person or persons,‬‭firm, association or corporation owning,‬ ‭keeping or harboring a dog‬‭or cat‬‭.‬ ‭"‭‬Vicious‬‭Dangerous dog"‬‭shall mean a dog‬‭which‬‭that‬‭attacks or bites a person or other‬‭domestic‬ ‭pet‬‭companion animal‬‭while the dog is off the premises‬‭of the‬‭owner‬‭guardian‬‭or keeper, and‬ ‭the person or‬‭pet‬‭companion animal‬‭attacked or bitten‬‭requires medical attention.‬‭Vicious‬ ‭Dangerous‬‭dog complaints shall be investigated pursuant‬‭to section ‭‬5-27‬‭(b).‬ ‭(Ord. of 6-23-97; Ord. of 4-17-00; Ord. of 4-17-23(1))‬ ‭5-14 Identification required.‬ ‭Identification that includes the name and contact information for the guardian of the dog or cat‬ ‭shall be securely attached to a collar or harness and worn at all times.‬ ‭5-‬‭14‬‭‬‭15‬‭At-large prohibited.‬ ‭(a) ‭‬Prohibition.‬‭Except as exempted below, no person‬‭shall permit a dog‬‭or cat for whom they‬ ‭are the guardian‬‭him or her‬‭or‬‭who is‬‭under‬‭his or‬‭her‬‭their‬‭control to be at-large as defined in‬ ‭section ‬‭5-13‬‭or to trespass upon the property of another,‬‭public or private.‬ ‭28‬ Page 47 of 90 ‭(b) ‬‭Public Safety.‬‭Should an at-large dog‬‭or cat‬‭be deemed to pose an imminent public safety‬ ‭risk, said animal may be killed by the Police Department or their designee. Such an act shall‬ ‭occur where other reasonable means to control the animal have been unsuccessful or deemed‬ ‭not practicable under the circumstances.‬ ‭(c) ‬‭Exemptions.‬‭A dog‬‭or cat‬‭may be‬‭is not‬‭at-large‬‭if‬‭it is‬‭they are‬‭:‬ ‭(1) On the premises of the dog’s‬‭or cat’s‬‭owner‬‭guardian‬‭;‬ ‭(2) On the premises of the person under whose control the dog‬‭or‬‭cat is under;‬‭or‬ ‭(3) On the premises of another person as long as that person has given permission for‬ ‭the dog‬‭or cat‬‭to be at-large‬‭;‭‬.‬ ‭(4) ‬‭A dog is not at-large if they are‬‭Ii‭‬n‬‭a designated‬‭off-leash dog area managed and‬ ‭regulated by the board of parks and recreation commissioners.‬ ‭(Ord. of 6-23-97; Ord. of 4-17-00; Ord. of 9-10-12(1))‬ ‭5-‬‭15‬‭16‬‭License and rabies vaccination required.‬ ‭(a) ‭‬Licensing.‬‭Every‬‭owner or keeper‬‭guardian‬‭of‬‭a dog‬‭or cat‬‭more than six (6) months old‬‭who‬ ‭has resided in the city for more than 90 days,‬‭shall‬‭be required to‬‭annually‬‭register and license‬ ‭the animal‬,‭‬‭in the manner prescribed by the city‬,‭‬‭with the city clerk’s office‬‭and to do so‬ ‭annually provided that no guardian shall be required to register a dog or cat more than once in‬ ‭any calendar year‬‭. The license shall expire on the‬‭first day of April next after its issuance. Upon‬ i‭ssuance of such license and payment of the license fee as required in section ‭‬5-17‬‭of this‬ ‭chapter, each‬‭dog owner‬‭guardian‬‭shall receive a‬‭dog‬‭license tag.‬ ‭(b) ‬‭Rabies vaccination.‬‭Proof of a current rabies‬‭vaccination, as required by state law, shall be‬ ‭required for the licensing of any animal.‬ ‭(c) ‬‭Fixture of tag.‬‭The‬‭dog‬‭license tag issued‬‭to any person as provided herein shall be securely‬ ‭attached to a collar or harness on such licensed dog‬‭or cat‬‭and worn at all times.‬ ‭(Ord. of 6-23-97; Ord. of 8-14-00; Ord. of 6-4-07, eff. 7-4-07)‬ ‭State law reference—Control of rabies ‭‬20‬‭V.S.A. § ‭‬3801‬‭et‬‭seq.; immunization required, ‬‭20‬‭V.S.A. § 4003.‬ ‭5-‬‭16‬‭17‬‭License fees.‬ ‭(a) In addition to the license fee and any penalty fee required by state law, the municipal fee‬ ‭for each license required by this article shall be‬‭twenty dollars ($20.00) for each‬ ‭neutered/spayed dog and forty dollars ($40.00) for each non-neutered/non-spayed dog.‬ ‭recommended by the city clerk’s office and approved by the city council, provided that the fee‬ ‭for an intact dog or cat shall be greater than that for a neutered or spayed dog or cat. The fees‬ ‭established under this section shall be reviewed not less than every five years.‬ ‭29‬ Page 48 of 90 ‭(b) The municipal fees collected under this section shall be used for education and other‬ ‭services pertinent to the improved welfare of dogs and cats who reside in the city.‬ ‭(b)‬‭‬‭(c)‬‭ The‬‭owner or keeper‬‭guardian‬‭of a neutered/spayed‬‭dog that serves as the person’s‬ ‭service animal under the Americans with Disabilities Act may request waiver of the municipal‬ l‭icense fee (but not the state fee) by providing to the city clerk’s office adequate responses to‬ ‭the following questions in writing:‬ ‭• Is the dog a service animal required because of a disability?‬ ‭• What work or task has the dog been trained to perform?‬ ‭(Ord. of 6-23-97; Ord. of 6-25-01; Ord. of 6-4-07, eff. 7-4-07; Ord. of 2-16-21)‬ ‭State law reference—Similar provisions, ‬‭20‬‭V.S.A.‬‭§ ‭‬3581‬‭.‬ ‭5-‬‭17‬‭18‬‭Removal of dog waste required.‬ ‭The‬‭owner, keeper‬‭guardian‬‭or person in control of‬‭any dog‬‭or cat‬‭shall be responsible for the‬ ‭removal of any defecation deposited by such dog‬‭or‬‭cat‬‭on any public or private property.‬ ‭(Ord. of 6-23-97)‬ ‭5-‬‭18‬‭19‬‭—5-23 Reserved.‬ ‭Discussion‬ ‭The title of Article II is revised to reflect the recommended addition of cats to specified‬ ‭sections of the Article.‬ ‭Section 5-13‬ ‭Section 5-13 adds a definition of “cat” and updates the definition of “guardian” accordingly.‬ ‭Section 5-14‬ ‭Section 5-14 is a new section that requires dogs and cats to wear identification that‬ i‭ncludes the name and contact information for the guardian. This requirement serves to‬ ‭protect companion animals, and benefits animal control efforts and public safety as well.‬ ‭30‬ Page 49 of 90 ‭Rhode Island summarizes the benefits of such an ordinance in the preamble to a state law‬ ‭that requires identification for cats.‬16 ‭Specifically, the Rhode Island legislature determined‬ ‭that:‬ ‭(1) Cat identification would provide cats protection under the law, equal to that afforded‬ ‭dogs, by establishing ownership which, in turn, would encourage cat owners to take full‬ ‭responsibility for their pets’ welfare.‬ ‭(2) [Already required in Vermont] Cat identification would protect cats, as dogs are now‬ ‭protected, by establishing minimum holding periods for cats released to and/or impounded‬ ‭by municipal animal control facilities and private animal shelters.‬ ‭(3) A program to require cat identification should facilitate the return of lost, owned cats.‬ ‭(4) Cat identification would provide a method to help distinguish between owned and‬ ‭unowned cat populations thus assisting animal control officers and animal shelters in‬ ‭carrying out their mission.‬ ‭(5) Cat identification would advance the reduction of the untold suffering of cats at-large in‬ ‭our state by helping to insure the quick return of injured and sick animals to their owners.‬ ‭(6) Passage of this bill would reduce the number of unowned cats and increase education to‬ ‭owners as to the need for sterilization of cats, thereby reducing unwanted litters, eliminating‬ ‭cat over-population problems, and reducing the costs to cities and towns for euthanizing‬ ‭at-large or unowned cats.‬ ‭(7) Cat identification would help support public health and safety in the control of rabies.‬17 ‭These same public purposes are advanced when dogs are required to wear identification.‬ ‭Section 5-15‬ ‭Section 5-15 as currently written prohibits at-large dogs. The proposed amendment‬ i‭ncludes cats in this prohibition. The Task Force recognizes that this recommendation falls‬ ‭outside the scope of its mandate but considers the amendment necessary for the welfare‬ ‭of cats, the protection of wildlife, and public safety. The American Veterinary Medical‬ ‭Association (“AVMA”) provides a Model Dog and Cat Control Ordinance that requires all‬ ‭dogs and cats “be kept under restraint” for these very reasons.‬18 ‭A number of municipalities‬ ‭16‬ ‭R.I. Gen. Laws § 4-22-1.‬ ‭17‬ ‭Id‬‭.‬ ‭18‬ ‭American Veterinary Medical Association, “Model Dog and Cat Control Ordinance,” sec. V(a),‬ ‭https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/Model-Dog-Cat-Control-Ord-Policy.pdf‬‭;‬‭American Veterinary‬ ‭Medical Association, “Free-roaming, owned cats,”‬ ‭https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/avma-policies/free-roaming-owned-cats‬‭.‬ ‭31‬ Page 50 of 90 i‭n Vermont, for example South Burlington, Shelburne, and Stowe, have followed the AVMA’s‬ l‭ead and prohibit at-large cats and/or include at-large cats in the definition of “nuisance‬ ‭animal,” and impose fines and/or permit their impoundment.‬19 ‭The Welfare of Cats‬‭: As the AVMA and other authorities‬‭recognize, free-roaming cats are‬ l‭ikely to have a reduced life span and may be exposed to injury, suffering, and death from‬ ‭vehicles, attacks from other animals, disease, cruel acts by humans, poisons, traps, and‬ ‭weather extremes.‬20 ‭Burlington’s resident cats have not escaped these harms.‬21 ‭The Protection of Wildlife‬‭: The American Bird Conservancy succinctly summarizes the‬ ‭detrimental and deadly impact of free-roaming cats on native species of wildlife:‬ ‭Outdoor domestic cats are a recognized threat to global biodiversity. Cats have contributed‬ ‭to the extinction of 63 species of birds, mammals, and reptiles in the wild and continue to‬ ‭adversely impact a wide variety of other species, including those at risk of extinction, such as‬ ‭Piping Plover …The ecological dangers are so critical that the International Union for‬ ‭Conservation of Nature (IUCN) lists domestic cats as one of the world’s worst non-native‬ i‭nvasive species.‬22 ‭In the United States, it is estimated that outdoor cats kill approximately 2.4 billion birds‬ ‭every year, earning the distinction of the number-one direct, human-caused threat to birds.‬ 23 ‭Between 6.9 to 20.7 billion small mammals are killed by cats each year, and researchers‬ ‭19‬ ‭South Burlington, Vermont, “Care & Control of Dogs & Cats Ordinance,” Town Ordinance, Vol. 1, pg. 159-165, sec.‬ ‭3,‬ ‭https://cms6.revize.com/revize/southburlington/document_center/city%20regulations/Care_and_Control_of_Dogs‬ ‭_and_Cats_Ordinance.pdf‬‭; Town of Shelburne, “An Ordinance‬‭for the Care and Control of Animals,” Town‬ ‭Ordinance, Vol. 1, pg. 3-32, sec. 2(g) and sec. 4(a),‬ ‭https://www.shelburnevt.org/DocumentCenter/View/103/Animal-Control-Ordinance‬‭;‬ ‭Town of Stowe, Vermont, “Animal Control Ordinance,” Municipal Code, Chapter 2, Article III,‬ ‭https://www.townofstowevt.org/vertical/Sites/%7B97FA91EA-60A3-4AC6-8466-F386C5AE9012%7D/uploads/Anim‬ ‭al_Control_Ordinance_Final_2015_SIGNED.pdf‬‭.‬ ‭20‬ ‭E.g.‬‭AVMA, “Free-roaming, owned cats,”‬‭supra‬‭, n.‬‭1.‬ ‭21‬ ‭E.g‬‭., New England Cable News, “Boy Cited After Allegedly‬‭Hanging Cat From Tree in Burlington, Vermont,” Nov.‬ ‭17, 2016,‬ ‭https://www.necn.com/news/local/vermont/boy-cited-after-allegedly-hanging-cat-from-tree-in-burlington-vermon‬ ‭t/41056/‬‭; Burlington Vermont Police Department Incident‬‭Reports document an instance in which a cat was injured‬ ‭in a leghold trap and left to stagger off and suffer after their release.‬ ‭22‬ ‭American Bird Conservancy, “Indoor Cats,”‬‭https://abcbirds.org/program/cats-indoors/cats-and-birds/‬‭(also‬ ‭providing links to scientific literature on the issue);‬‭see also‬‭, Wildlife Center of Virginia, “Untamed -‬‭The Case for‬ ‭Indoor Cats.‬ ‭https://vermont.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/case-for-indoor-cats-video/untamed-the-wildlife-center-of-virgini‬ ‭a/‬‭(also addressing the welfare of cats, zoonotic‬‭diseases, and ways to transition free-roaming cats to the indoors).‬ ‭23‬ ‭Id‬‭., American Bird Conservatory.‬ ‭32‬ Page 51 of 90 ‭believe that between 258 to 822 million reptiles and 95 to 299 million amphibians may‬ ‭suffer the same fate.‬24 ‭Burlington is an environmentally conscious community, and the Task Force suggests that a‬ ‭prohibition on free-roaming cats is simply good environmental stewardship.‬ ‭Public Safety‬‭: The scientific literature documents‬‭that free-roaming cats pose a significant‬ ‭threat to public health because they can carry and transmit a number of zoonotic viruses,‬ ‭bacteria, and parasites, such as rabies and toxoplasmosis.‬25 ‭Notably, according to Peter‬ ‭Marra, a professor of biology and the environment at Georgetown University, “[d]ogs used‬ ‭to be the primary way humans picked up rabies from domestic animals … [b]ut we started‬ l‭icensing dogs and requiring leash laws and rabies vaccines. Now, dogs are not the problem‬ ‭at all—it’s primarily cats.”‬26 ‭The Task Force recommends that the city prohibit free-roaming cats for the reasons stated‬ ‭herein.‬ ‭Section 5-16‬ ‭Section 5-16 extends the requirement for a license to cats. Such requirements have been‬ ‭shown to improve the welfare of cats, increase public safety, and enhance the quality of life‬ i‭n their communities, much like the identification requirements discussed above.‬ ‭Municipalities across the country have implemented cat-licensing requirements, including‬ j‭urisdictions in Vermont such as South Burlington and Shelburne.‬27 ‭The Task Force recommends that the city require licenses for cats for the reasons stated‬ ‭herein.‬ ‭Section 5-17‬ ‭24‬ ‭Smithsonian Magazine, “Feral Cats Kill Billions of Small Critters Each Year,” Jan. 29, 2013,‬ ‭https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/feral-cats-kill-billions-of-small-critters-each-year-7814590/#:~:t‬ ‭ext=Based%20upon%20data%20taken%20from,needed%20to%20verify%20those%20extrapolations‬ ‭25‬ ‭E.g‬‭., R. W. Gerhold and D. A. Jessup, “Zoonotic Diseases‬‭Associated with Free-Roaming Cats,” Zoonosis and Pubic‬ ‭Health, 2012,‬ ‭https://abcbirds.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Gerhold-and-Jessup-2012-Zoonotic-diseases-and-free-roaming-‬ ‭cats.pdf‬‭.‬ ‭26‬ ‭Kristine Liao, “Outdoor cats are deadly—and not just for birds and squirrels,” Popular Science, May 31, 2022,‬ ‭https://www.popsci.com/environment/outdoor-cats-spread-diseases/‬‭.‬ ‭27‬ ‭South Burlington Town Ordinance,‬‭supra‬‭n. 4, sec.‬‭4(A); Town of Shelburne Ordinance,‬‭supra‬‭n. 4, sec.‬‭12(a).‬ ‭33‬ Page 52 of 90 ‭Section 5-17 requires fees for dog and cat licenses to be reviewed no less frequently than‬ ‭every five years, and for the revenue to be used for education and other services pertinent‬ ‭to the improved welfare of dogs and cats who reside in the city. Anecdotal evidence‬ ‭suggests that more residents will comply with the licensing requirement if the fees are used‬ ‭to provide companion animal-related services.‬ ‭Adequate low-cost spay/neuter options‬ ‭There is consensus among those knowledgeable about companion animal overpopulation‬ ‭that communities must take the important step to provide adequate safe, affordable,‬ ‭voluntary spay/neuter programs that are readily accessible to the community, and that‬ ‭focus on education and incentives to encourage participation by those sectors of the‬ ‭community most in need of the service.‬28 ‭The Humane Society of Chittenden County’s (HSCC) Community Pet Clinic provides a‬ l‭ow-cost spay and neuter service and administers a fund to assist residents who cannot‬ ‭afford the service.‬29 ‭Task Force member Nina Hurley, who serves on the HSCC’s Board of‬ ‭Directors, advises that the clinic is at capacity. The Task Force recommends that the City‬ ‭consult with the HSCC to assess whether the City should provide support to the clinic‬ ‭and/or establish an additional, independent spay/neuter program.‬ ‭28‬ ‭See, e.g.‬‭, American Society for the Prevention of‬‭Cruelty to Animals, “Position Statement on Mandatory‬ ‭Spay/Neuter Laws,”‬ ‭https://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statement-mandatory-spayneuter‬ ‭-laws#:~:text=ASPCA%20Position,means%20to%20reduce%20shelter%20intake‬‭.‬ ‭29‬ ‭Humane Society of Chittenden County, “Spay-Neuter at the Community Pet Clinic,”‬ ‭https://www.hsccvt.org/SNClinic‬‭.‬ ‭34‬ Page 53 of 90 ‭Proposed Amendments to Article III of Chapter 5‬ ‭The Task Force’s recommended amendments are inserted and underlined, and text that‬ ‭would be eliminated is indicated by strikethroughs.‬ ‭ARTICLE III. ENFORCEMENT AND IMPOUNDMENT‬ ‭5-24 Penalties.‬ ‭An offense of any provision of this chapter by any person shall be deemed a civil ordinance‬ ‭violation and shall be punishable by the following penalties:‬ ‭(1) ‬‭First offense.‬‭A first offense of any provision‬‭of this chapter in any twelve-month‬ ‭period shall be punishable by a fine of no less than‬‭one‬‭two‬‭hundred dollars ($‬‭1‬‭2‭‬00.00)‬ ‭and no more than‬‭one‬‭two‬‭hundred fifty dollars ($‬‭1‭‬2‭‬50.00).‬‭The waiver fine shall be‬‭one‬ ‭two‬‭hundred dollars ($‬‭1‬‭2‬‭00.00).‬ ‭(2) ‬‭Second offense.‬‭A second offense of any provision‬‭of this chapter in any twelve-month‬ ‭period shall be punishable by a fine of no less than‬‭one‬‭two‬‭hundred fifty dollars‬ ‭($‬‭1‬‭2‬‭50.00) and no more than‬‭two‬‭three‬‭hundred fifty‬‭dollars ($‬‭2‭‬3‬‭50.00). The waiver fine‬ ‭shall be‬‭one‬‭two‬‭hundred fifty dollars ($‬‭1‬‭2‭‬50.00).‬ ‭(3) ‬‭Third and subsequent offenses.‬‭A third or subsequent‬‭offense of any provision of this‬ ‭chapter in any twelve-month period shall be punishable by a fine of no less than‬‭two‬ ‭three‬‭hundred fifty dollars ($‬‭2‭‬3‭‬50.00) and no more‬‭than‬‭five‬‭six‬‭hundred dollars‬ ‭($‬‭5‬‭6‬‭00.00). The waiver fine shall be‬‭two‬‭three‬‭hundred‬‭fifty dollars ($‬‭2‭‬5‭‬0.00).‬ ‭In addition to the penalties provided in this section‬,‭‬‭:‬ ‭(1)‬ ‭Any person found in violation of this chapter may be subject to a restorative justice‬ ‭process with the Burlington Community Justice Center at the discretion of the animal‬ ‭control committee.‬ ‭(2)‬ ‭a‬‭Any‬‭animal found in violation of this chapter may‬‭be impounded as provided in‬ ‭section ‭‬5-25‬‭of this chapter.‬ ‭(Ord. of 6-23-97; Ord. of 6-4-07, eff. 7-4-07)‬ ‭5-25 Impoundment.‬ ‭(a) ‭‬Authority to impound.‬‭‬‭Dogs‬‭Any animal‬‭in violation‬‭of any provision of this chapter‬‭or‬ ‭suspected of being diseased or injured‬‭may be taken‬‭by the enforcement officer and‬ i‭mpounded in the city‬‭pound‬‭animal shelter‬‭and there‬‭confined in a humane manner‬,‭ except‬ ‭that any animal suspected of being a stray shall be impounded‬‭.‬‭The enforcement officer may, in‬ l‭ieu of boarding and when in the public interest and consistent with the public safety, allow an‬ i‭mpounded dog to remain confined in the custody of its owner on the owner’s recognizance‬ ‭that the dog shall remain confined to the owner’s property, follow the terms of impoundment‬ ‭set by the enforcement officer and shall not be in violation of any provision of this chapter.‬ ‭35‬ Page 54 of 90 ‭Confinement in lieu of boarding shall continue until such time as the violation or condition‬ ‭authorizing impoundment has been abated‬‭.‬ ‭(b) ‬‭Impoundment fees.‬‭Any‬‭dog‬‭animal‬‭impounded‬‭under the provisions of this chapter shall‬ ‭be released only on payment of a‬‭seventy-five‬‭one‬‭hundred‬‭dollar‬‭s‬‭($‬‭75‬‭100‬‭.00) impoundment‬ ‭fee.‬ ‭(c) ‬‭Boarding fee.‬‭In addition to the impoundment‬‭fee charged herein there shall be an‬ ‭additional charge of‬‭ten dollars ($10.00)‬‭actual expenses‬‭per day‬‭for board for‬‭each day‬‭the‬ ‭period that the‬‭dog‬‭animal‬‭is impounded‬,‭‬‭.‬‭except that‬‭if an animal is claimed up to three (3)‬ ‭hours after impoundment, the owner will be responsible for one-half (1/2) day’s boarding fee. If‬ ‭an animal is claimed within two (2) hours of opening business hours on the following business‬ ‭day, the owner will not be charged for that day’s boarding fee.‬ ‭(d) ‬‭City clerk to collect fees before releasing‬‭dog‬‭animal‬.‭‭‬It shall be the duty of the city clerk‬‭to‬ ‭collect all‬‭im‬‭pound and board‬i‭ng‬‭fees before releasing‬‭a‬‭n‬‭dog‬‭animal‬‭.‬ ‭(e) ‬‭Unlicensed dogs‬‭and cats‬‭to be licensed before‬‭release.‬‭If an impounded dog‬‭or cat‬‭is‬ ‭unlicensed, in addition to the impound‬i‭ng‬‭ment‬‭and‬‭boarding fees set forth herein, the dog‬‭or‬ ‭cat‬‭shall not be released without the payment of the‬‭license fee required by section ‬‭5-17‬,‭‬ ‭except that if the impounded dog‬‭or cat‬‭has not had‬‭its proper vaccinations to be registered a‬ ‭forty-five‬‭one hundred‬‭dollar ($‬‭45‬‭100‬‭.00) cash deposit‬‭shall be posted with the city clerk or‬‭his‬ ‭or her‬‭their‬‭designated agent(s) until proof of registration‬‭is presented. A dog‬‭or cat‬‭released‬ ‭under cash deposit shall be registered within two (2) working days after‬‭its‬‭release. If the dog‬‭or‬ ‭cat‬‭is not registered within the time period set forth‬‭herein, the cash deposit shall be forfeited‬ ‭and the‬‭owner‬‭guardian‬‭of the animal shall be subject‬‭to additional penalties under the‬ ‭provisions of ‭‬20‬‭V.S.A. Chapter ‬‭193‬ ‭(f) ‬‭Disposition of unredeemed‬‭dogs‬‭animals‬.‭‭‬If‬‭any impounded‬‭dog‬‭animal‬‭with a current and‬ ‭effective license established by proof of a dog license tag,‬‭is not redeemed within (7) days of‬‭its‬ i‭mpoundment,‬‭it‬‭the animal‬‭shall be‬‭sold or given‬‭away‬‭offered for adoption at the city animal‬ ‭shelter or transferred to a cooperating animal shelter as defined in 20 V.S.A. § 3901‬‭.‬‭If any‬ i‭mpounded dog without a current and effective license established by proof of a dog license‬ ‭tag, is not redeemed within (5) days of its impoundment, it shall be sold or given away. Any‬ ‭proceeds from the sale of any impounded dog shall first be allocated to taxes, fees and other‬ ‭charges related to the impoundment. Any balance then remaining shall be paid to the owner if‬ ‭any is found. If proceeds from the sale of the unredeemed dog do not cover the costs‬ ‭associated with the impoundment, the balance of sums owed under this chapter may be‬ ‭collected in a civil action brought under this section.‬‭If any unredeemed‬‭dog‬‭animal‬‭is not‬‭sold‬ ‭or given away‬‭adopted‬‭because of disease, temperament‬‭or other cause, it shall be‬‭destroyed‬ i‭n a humane way‬‭euthanized‬‭. The impoundment period‬‭may be waived by the‬‭poundkeeper‬ ‭director of the animal shelter‬‭in‬‭the‬‭case of a severely‬‭injured animal whose‬‭owner‬‭guardian‬ ‭cannot be located or is unwilling to claim the animal.‬ ‭(g) ‬‭Interference with impoundment.‬‭Any person who‬‭interferes with the impounding of a‬‭n‬‭dog‬ ‭animal‬‭under provisions of this article or releases,‬‭or who attempts to release‬,‭‬‭an impounded‬ ‭dog‬ ‭animal‬‭contrary to this article shall be in violation‬‭of this chapter.‬ ‭36‬ Page 55 of 90 ‭(h) ‬‭Notice of impoundment.‬‭Within twenty-four (24) hours of the impoundment of any‬‭dog‬ ‭animal‬‭under this chapter, the enforcement officer shall make every reasonable attempt to‬ ‭notify the‬‭owner‬‭guardian‬‭of the impounded‬‭dog‬‭animal‬‭of such impoundment. Such notice‬ ‭shall include either personal contact with the‬‭owner‬‭guardian‬‭or a written notice posted at the‬ ‭dwelling house of the‬‭owner‬‭guardian‬‭.‬ ‭(Ord. of 6-23-97; Ord. of 6-4-07, eff. 7-4-07)‬ ‭State law reference—Notice by impounder, ‬‭20‬‭V.S.A.‬‭§ ‬‭3413‬‭.‬ ‭5-26 Cruelty.‬ ‭Any person who shall torture, torment or cruelly neglect to provide with necessary sustenance‬ ‭or shelter, or shall cruelly beat or needlessly mutilate or illegally kill any animal, or any person‬ ‭who shall cause any animal to be tortured, tormented, or fight with other animals, or deprived‬ ‭of necessary sustenance or to be cruelly beaten or needlessly mutilated or illegally killed shall‬ ‭be guilty of a misdemeanor offense and shall be punishable by a fine of from‬‭one‬‭three‬ ‭hundred dollars ($‬‭1‭‬3‬‭00.00) to‬‭five‬‭six‬‭hundred dollars‬‭($‬‭5‭‬600‬‭.00).‬ ‭(Ord. of 6-23-97)‬ ‭5-27 Animal control committee.‬ ‭(a) ‭‬Animal control committee established.‬‭For purposes‬‭of this section, an animal control‬ ‭committee is established. The animal control committee will be a subcommittee of the‬ ‭Burlington Police Commission and shall consist of three (3) commission members‬,‭ one (1)‬ l‭icensed veterinarian, and (1) certified animal behavior professional‬‭to be appointed on an as‬ ‭needed basis by the chair of the Burlington Police Commission. The designated animal control‬ ‭officer shall be the prosecuting officer for any violation brought before the committee.‬ ‭(b) ‬‭Vicious‬‭Dangerous‬‭dogs.‬‭Upon written complaint‬‭by a city resident that a dog is alleged to‬ ‭be‬‭vicious‬‭dangerous‬‭as defined in section ‭‬5-13‬‭(e)‬,‭‬‭the animal control committee may hold a‬ ‭hearing on the facts of the complaint and, if the dog is found to be‬‭vicious‬‭dangerous‬,‭ make‬ ‭such order as necessary to protect the public. Such order may include, but is not limited to, any‬ ‭of the following: confinement in a secure enclosure or other similar restriction, muzzling‬ ‭adoption, or‬‭destruction in a humane manner‬‭euthanasia‬‭.‬‭In addition, the animal control‬ ‭committee may revoke the privilege of any‬‭owner‬‭guardian‬‭to keep, harbor or have custody of‬ ‭any animals while in the city and that no new privileges be granted.‬ ‭(c) ‬‭Repeated impoundment.‬‭In the event that any‬‭dog shall be impounded three (3) or more‬ ‭times in a twelve-month period, the animal control committee may, at the request of an‬ ‭enforcement officer, or in their discretion, hold a hearing after which they may make such‬ ‭order as is necessary to protect the public. Such order may include, but is not limited to, any of‬ ‭the following: confinement in a secure enclosure or other similar restriction, muzzling adoption,‬ ‭or‬‭destruction in a humane manner‬‭euthanasia‬‭. In addition,‬‭the animal control committee may‬ ‭revoke the privilege of any‬‭owner‬‭guardian‬‭to keep,‬‭harbor or have custody of any animals‬ ‭while in the city and that no new privileges be granted.‬ ‭37‬ Page 56 of 90 ‭(d) ‬‭Penalty for violation of orders.‬‭Any person who violates any provision of any order of the‬ ‭animal control committee shall be guilty of a misdemeanor offense and shall be punishable by‬ ‭a fine of from‬‭one‬‭three‬‭hundred dollars ($‬‭1‭‬300‬‭.00)‬‭to‬‭five‬‭six‬‭hundred dollars ($‬‭5‭‬6‬‭00.00).‬ ‭(Ord. of 6-23-97; Ord. of 8-14-00)‬ ‭5-28 Confinement of animals in vehicles.‬ ‭(a) A person shall not leave an animal unattended in a standing or parked motor vehicle in a‬ ‭manner that would endanger the health or safety of the animal.‬ ‭(b) Any‬‭humane‬‭animal control‬‭officer, law enforcement‬‭officer, or member of a fire and‬ ‭rescue service may use reasonable force to remove any such animal from a motor vehicle. The‬ ‭officer may not be subject to criminal or civil liability for any damage resulting from actions‬ ‭taken under subsection (a) of this section.‬‭If the‬‭aforementioned officers are unavailable, a‬ ‭person who forcibly enters a motor vehicle for actions taken under subsection (a) of this section‬ ‭shall not be subject to criminal or civil liability for damage resulting from the forcible entry if the‬ ‭person: (1) determines the motor vehicle is locked or there is otherwise no reasonable method‬ ‭for the animal to exit the vehicle; (2) reasonably and in good faith believes that forcible entry‬ i‭nto the motor vehicle is necessary because the animal is in imminent danger of harm; (3)‬ ‭notifies a humane officer, law enforcement officer, or member of a fire and rescue service prior‬ ‭to forcibly entering the vehicle; (4) remains with the animal in a safe location reasonably close‬ ‭to the motor vehicle until a humane officer, law enforcement officer, or member of a fire and‬ ‭rescue service arrives; (5) places a notice on the vehicle that the authorities have been notified‬ ‭and specifying the location of the animal; and (6) uses no more force to enter the vehicle and‬ ‭remove the animal than necessary under the circumstances.‬‭The‬‭An‬‭officer shall deliver the‬ ‭animal to a humane society, veterinarian or‬‭the city‬‭town or municipal pound‬‭animal shelter‬‭. If‬ ‭the‬‭owner‬‭guardian‬‭of the animal cannot be found,‬‭the officer shall place a written notice in the‬ ‭vehicle, bearing the name of the officer and the‬‭department‬‭and‬‭address where the animal may‬ ‭be claimed. The‬‭owner‬‭guardian‬‭shall be liable for‬‭reasonable expenses associated with the‬ ‭removal, delivery, boarding and disposition of the animal and a lien may be placed on the‬ ‭animal for these expenses.‬‭(c) A violation of this‬‭section shall be a civil violation subject to the‬ ‭penalties imposed by Section ‬‭5-24‬‭.‬ ‭5-29 Abandonment of injured animal‬ ‭(a) A person shall not leave the scene of an accident in which such person has reason to‬ ‭believe that they have caused the injury or death of a domestic animal. Such person shall‬ i‭mmediately contact an enforcement officer, and make a reasonable effort to immediately‬ ‭contact the guardian of the animal. If the animal is injured wildlife, the person shall contact a‬ ‭humane officer or a licensed wildlife rehabilitator for assistance.‬ ‭(b) A violation of this section shall be a civil violation subject to the penalties imposed by‬ ‭Section 5-24.‬ ‭Discussion‬ ‭Section 5-24‬ ‭38‬ Page 57 of 90 ‭Section 5-24 increases penalties for civil violations of the Chapter 5 and adds restorative‬ j‭ustice measures as permissible additional penalties.‬ ‭Section 5-25‬ ‭Section 5-25(a) extends the authority to impound to any animal in violation of the chapter‬ ‭or suspected of being diseased or injured, and requires impoundment of any animal‬ ‭suspected of being a stray.‬ ‭Section 5-25(b) increases the impoundment fee.‬ ‭Section 5-25(c) replaces the specified boarding fee with the requirement that the fee reflect‬ ‭actual expenses.‬ ‭Section 5-25(d) extends the city clerk’s authority to collect impoundment and boarding fees‬ ‭regardless of the species involved.‬ ‭Section 5-25(e) requires unlicensed cats, as well as dogs, to be licensed before release.‬ ‭Section 5-25(f) removes the authority to sell or give away unredeemed animals and‬ ‭replaces it with the authority to offer these animals for adoption through a shelter.‬ ‭Sections 5-25(g) and (h) extend the prohibition on interference with impoundment and the‬ ‭requirement for notice of impoundment to all animals regardless of species.‬ ‭Section 5-26‬ ‭Section 5-26 increases the fines for cruelty to animals.‬ ‭Section 5-27‬ ‭Section 5-27(a) adds a licensed veterinarian and a certified animal behavior professional to‬ ‭the animal control committee to be appointed to serve on an as-needed basis. This will‬ ‭ensure that the committee has access to the expertise needed to properly resolve the‬ ‭cases that come before it, such as dangerous dog hearings.‬ ‭Section 5-27(d) increases the penalty for violations of an order of the animal control‬ ‭committee.‬ ‭39‬ Page 58 of 90 ‭Section 5-28‬ ‭Section 5-28 authorizes any person to use reasonable force to remove an animal from a‬ ‭vehicle when the health and safety of the animal is at risk, but only when a humane officer,‬ l‭aw enforcement officer, or member of a fire and rescue service is unavailable. The Task‬ ‭Force views this amendment as necessary to address situations in which the animal may be‬ i‭n distress and officials are not immediately available. The language of the amendment‬ ‭tracks the language of the similar state law.‬ ‭Section 5-29‬ ‭Section 5-29 is a new section that requires a person who has injured or caused the death of‬ ‭an animal to remain at the scene and to contact an enforcement officer. It further requires‬ ‭such person to make a reasonable effort to contact the animal’s guardian should it appear‬ ‭that the animal has a guardian, and to contact a humane officer or wildlife rehabilitator if‬ ‭the animal is injured wildlife.‬ ‭40‬ Page 59 of 90 ‭Proposed Amendments to Section 22-13 of Chapter 22‬ ‭The Task Force’s recommended amendments are inserted and underlined, and text that‬ ‭would be eliminated is indicated by strikethroughs.‬ ‭Chapter 22 - Sec. 22-13. - Animals prohibited; exception‬ ‭No domestic animals, except dogs‬‭and cat‬‭s,‭‬ shall be‬‭permitted in any park.‬‭Dogs shall be‬ l‭eashed or controlled by other similar means of physical restraint at all times, except in‬ ‭off-leash areas designated in the Off-Leash Dog Policy. Cats shall be leashed or confined in a‬ ‭carrier at all times.‬ ‭Discussion‬ ‭Section 22-13‬ ‭If Chapter 5, Article II, section 5-15 is amended to prohibit at-large cats, as recommended,‬ ‭section 22-13 would provide an alternative means for guardians to provide an outdoor‬ ‭experience for the cats under their care.‬ ‭41‬ Page 60 of 90 ‭Appendix D: Detailed Licensing Information‬ ‭Licensing Program:‬ ‭The Task Force performed a detailed‬‭review of licensing data and trends‬ ‭and found that licensing rates in Burlington are low compared to neighboring cities with‬ ‭smaller populations. In 2022, for example, Shelburne was estimated to have a population‬ ‭of 7871, with 763 licensed dogs (9.68%) in FY2022. Burlington, by comparison, was‬ ‭estimated to have a population of 44,595 and 912 licensed dogs (2.04%) — a difference of‬ ‭7.64%.‬ ‭The Task Force also compared licensing trends over time in Burlington. In 2012, Burlington‬ ‭had 1255 dogs licensed, while in 2022 it was only 826 despite the fact that the population in‬ ‭Burlington has increased over that time, from 42671 to 44595‬30‭.‬ ‭The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) tracks dog guardianship trends‬31 ‭and‬ ‭estimates that 45% of US households have at least 1 dog, and the percentage owning at‬ l‭east one dog increased from 38% to 45% between 2016 and 2020 (and leveled off by 2022).‬ ‭Home ownership and household income impact the rate of dog guardianship and dog‬ ‭populations are essentially being influenced by the overall economy. With 17,174‬ ‭households in Burlington between 2017-2021‬32,‭ the number of dogs in Burlington may be‬ ‭estimated at 7728 using the national rate of 45%. This is likely to be a conservative‬ ‭estimate, as many Burlington homes have more than one dog.‬ ‭The AVMA also indicates that cat guardianship is on the rise as well: “The percentage of‬ ‭households that own at least one cat increased slightly between 2016 and 2020, from 25%‬ ‭to 26%, and then increased to 29% in 2022.” Based on this, we estimate that there may be‬ ‭at least 4980 companion cats in Burlington (not including feral cat colonies).‬ ‭If all estimated cats and dogs in Burlington were licensed, the revenues at current licensing‬ ‭fee of $27 per dog would be $276,996.51 per fiscal year. Assuming 100% is unattainable, we‬ l‭ooked at how much could be raised if we made an effort to increase licensing numbers‬ ‭similar to area communities such as South Burlington.‬ ‭30‬ ‭2012 and 2022 population estimates for the City of‬‭Burlington, VT came from census.gov‬ ‭31‬ ‭https://www.avma.org/news/pet-ownership-rate-stabilizes-spending-increases‬ ‭32‬ ‭https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/burlingtoncityvermont/HSD410221#HSD410221‬ ‭42‬ Page 61 of 90 ‭Table 2. Comparison of FY2022 Actual Licensing Revenues in Burlington to Projected increased revenues‬ ‭from increasing licensing numbers, based on the estimated numbers of dogs and cats in Burlington‬‭.‬ ‭Projected revenues from‬ ‭Projected revenues‬ ‭FY 2022 Revenues‬ ‭Projected Revenue‬ ‭successfully licensing‬ ‭from licensing 35%‬ ‭from Dog Licenses‬ i‭ncrease‬ ‭100% dogs and cats‬ ‭dogs 15% cats‬ ‭(11.8% dogs and‬ ‭(“realistic”)‬ ‭(“realistic”)*‬ ‭0% cats)‬ ‭Dogs (7728)‬ ‭$ 208,664.10‬ ‭$ 74,180.09‬ ‭$ 24,624.00‬ ‭$ 49,556.09‬ ‭Cats (3927)‬ ‭$ 68,332.41‬ ‭$ 20,614.62‬ ‭$ 0.00‬ ‭$ 20,614.6‬ ‭Total $‬ ‭$ 276,996.51‬ ‭$ 94,794.71‬ ‭$ 24,624.00‬ ‭$ 70,170.71‬ ‭*South Burlington has an estimated 35% licensing rate for dogs and 15% licensing rate for cats‬ ‭Below is more detailed information on licensing trends in neighboring cities from FY2018 –‬ ‭FY2022, showing how Burlington’s numbers have decreased compared to those of‬ ‭neighboring cities. We also show licensing numbers in comparison to population estimates‬ ‭and estimated numbers of dogs and cats, as well as detailed information on neighboring‬ ‭communities’ efforts to increase education/outreach concerning dog and cat licensing.‬ ‭Fig. 2 Burlington’s licensing numbers have fallen while its population has increased.‬ ‭43‬ Page 62 of 90 ‭Fig. 3 Comparison of Licensing Numbers to Town Size. In FY 2022 Burlington had the lowest proportion of‬ ‭licenses (912) to its population (44,595), compared to neighboring towns. Shelburne had the highest (9.69%),‬ ‭followed by South Burlington (6.83%) and Colchester (5.48%).‬ ‭44‬ Page 63 of 90 ‭Appendix E: Compliance, Reporting, and Enforcement Challenges‬ ‭The Task Force recommends the City appoint a dedicated, certified animal control officer,‬ ‭or officers, within the Burlington Police Department (“BPD”). Burlington has not had an‬ ‭Animal Control Officer since 2008‬33‭. Currently, limited animal control functions are‬ ‭performed by the community service officers (CSOs) at the BPD. CSOs are not required to‬ ‭have experience or training specific to animal control functions, such as animal handling,‬ ‭care, and welfare.‬34 ‭They are not tasked with handling cat-related incidents (except for‬ ‭removing deceased cats and checking for rabies vectors), and are not adequately able to‬ ‭address the increasing number of dog incidents. For example, residents who are bitten by‬ ‭an unfamiliar dog bear the burden of identifying the guardian of that dog in order to get‬ ‭any action from the police, even if that person fled the scene. Without investigative‬ ‭resources and training, CSOs are not positioned to be a resource to help those residents.‬ ‭Another issue the Task Force found was in both a lack of accessibility to effective reporting,‬ ‭and an understanding of how and what to report:‬ ‭●‬ ‭Inaccessibility of reporting.‬ ‭○‬ ‭Phone limitation for in-progress incidents.‬‭Reports‬‭are typically called into the‬ ‭Police Department. If any other means of reporting is used (contacting CSO‬ ‭email address (‬‭cso@bpdvt.org‬‭), See Click Fix, Burlington‬‭Police website’s‬ ‭online incident report form), the CSOs might not see these as quickly as they‬ ‭would if they are managed by Dispatch responding to a phone call. Thus‬ ‭reporting an emergent animal issue or incident is inaccessible to anyone who‬ ‭cannot use a phone (hearing impaired, Deaf, doesn’t have a phone, etc).‬ ‭○‬ ‭No clear category for animal-related incidents exists on the BPD website‬ ‭○‬ ‭No clear category for animal-related incidents exists on See Click Fix, which is‬ ‭commonly used by residents to enable other city departments to quickly‬ ‭resolve issues.‬ ‭●‬ ‭Reports not made by residents because‬ ‭○‬ ‭Fear of getting neighbors in trouble‬ ‭33‬ ‭Source:‬‭Shannon Trammell, executive manager, Burlington‬‭Police Dept‬ ‭34‬ ‭See‬‭City of Burlington, Community Service Officer‬‭Job Description,‬ ‭https://www.governmentjobs.com/careers/burlingtonvt/jobs/3045625/community-service-officer‬‭..‬ ‭45‬ Page 64 of 90  ‭○‬ ‭Distrust that the police can help or can be a resource to help‬ ‭○‬ ‭Lack of awareness of where to complain‬ ‭○‬ ‭Knowledge that currently BPD is not fully empowered to address these‬ ‭problems to residents’ satisfaction (for example, incidents involving‬ ‭free-roaming cats are not currently addressed by BPD).‬ ‭●‬ ‭Hindrances to enforcement responsiveness.‬ ‭○‬ ‭Other (higher) priorities.‬‭Other issues are prioritized‬‭for CSOs (e.g., car‬ ‭accidents), so even if the report is called in to be dispatched, they are still not‬ ‭always able to respond quickly. 62 reports were reported resolved with the‬ ‭response “gone on arrival”‬ ‭○‬ ‭Not enough information.‬‭Residents who do report issues‬‭don’t always provide‬ ‭enough information or details for CSOs to be able to follow through and‬ ‭resolve the problem.‬ ‭○‬ ‭Lack of investigative resources.‬‭Residents who are‬‭bitten by an unfamiliar dog‬ ‭or cat bear the burden of identifying the guardian of that dog in order to get‬ ‭any action from the police, even if that person, cat or dog fled the scene. The‬ ‭Task Force learned from its BPD representative that BPD is not empowered‬ ‭to take the time and resources to find the guardian if the name and address‬ ‭are not known to the victim.‬ ‭○‬ ‭Legal limitations.‬‭Some problems or incidents that‬‭are reported by residents‬ ‭cannot be addressed by CSOs because the issue being reported (e.g., a‬ ‭welfare issue) may not actually comprise an ordinance violation, or because‬ ‭the individual responsible doesn’t answer the door to respond to the CSO.‬ ‭The Task Force recommends that the city retain an officer, or officers, whose sole duty is to‬ ‭respond to animal-related issues so that the city’s animals and citizens are better served.‬ ‭The Task Force recommends that City animal control officers obtain certification in animal‬ ‭control and be required to participate in continuing education courses, through a national‬ ‭professional training program. In looking at available literature, Burlington is now of the‬ ‭size that it merits a full time animal control officer. The Task Force notes that some‬ ‭residents do not contact the Burlington Police Department as they may not be aware this is‬ ‭where complaints go, free-roaming cats are not addressed, and that people may not be‬ ‭46‬ Page 65 of 90 ‭comfortable with calling the police with concerns about their neighbors or may be reluctant‬ ‭to report incidents. Please see additional‬‭discussion‬‭under the ordinance for Section 5-2a‬ ‭In addition to the recommendation of a full-time animal control officer or officers, at times‬ ‭the City is not in compliance with the requirement to house stray companion animals due‬ ‭to space issues. Currently companion animals except birds, reptiles, and dogs are taken to‬ ‭the Humane Society of Chittenden County (HSCC). It is unclear if the City’s current‬ ‭contractor for dogs, Lucky Puppies, will provide services in the future or have enough space‬ i‭n the future for the City’s stray dogs. Because the HSCC and Lucky Puppies take in‬ ‭companion animals from other cities as well, space is an issue. The Task Force‬ ‭recommends that an animal shelter be within Burlington or close so that the shelter may‬ ‭be easily monitored and inspected by the Animal Control Officer.‬ ‭The Task Force also recommends that the animal shelter follows the standards of care‬35 ‭set‬ ‭forth by the Association of Shelter Veterinarians. These standards include provisions of‬ ‭adequate shelter, population management, standards for animal handling, sanitation,‬ ‭prevention of pathogen spread, and attention to medical and behavioral health. Given that‬ ‭the City would be responsible for animals in its care, if the City does not have its own‬ ‭shelter it should still ensure that contracted providers follow these guidelines.‬ ‭35‬ ‭The Association of Shelter Veterinarians’ Guidelines‬‭for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters - Second Edition -‬ ‭December 2022‬‭: https://jsmcah.org/index.php/jasv/issue/view/2‬ ‭47‬ Page 66 of 90 ‭Appendix F: Proposed Off-Leash Dog Ordinance and Off-Leash Dog Policy‬ ‭Proposed Addition of Section 7 to City Ordinance Appendix D‬ ‭In 2000 the City established a pilot program pertaining to off-leash dog areas that expired‬ i‭n 2003 with no apparent further action by the City.‬36 ‭The Task Force recommends that a‬ ‭new Section 7 of Appendix D be enacted to reflect current practices:‬ ‭Appendix D‬ ‭Sec. 7. - Off-leash dog opportunities‬ ‭(A)‬ ‭Off-Leash Dog Policy.‬ ‭The Parks, Recreation and Waterfront‬‭Department (PRW) shall‬ ‭maintain an Off-Leash Dog Policy (OLDP) as approved by the Parks Commission. The‬ ‭policy may be modified by PRW with the approval of the Parks Commission. The OLDP‬ ‭shall govern the establishment of off-leash dog opportunities, except that permanent‬ ‭fenced dog parks shall be established by ordinance. The OLDP shall govern operations‬ ‭of off-leash dog opportunities and share enforcement authority with the animal control‬ ‭officer(s) as enumerated in this section.‬ ‭(B)‬ ‭Designation of Areas.‬ ‭Areas shall be designated for‬‭the purpose of allowing dogs to be‬ ‭under control of the guardian or guardian’s agent by means other than physical‬ ‭restraint. Opportunities shall include: fenced dog parks, water access, and field use on‬ ‭an hourly, seasonal, or year-round basis within reasonable walking distance of‬ ‭neighborhoods. Opportunities, where possible, shall be dispersed across the city. .‬ ‭(1)‬ ‭Permanent off-leash fenced dog parks shall be located at:‬ ‭(a)‬ ‭Oakledge Park‬ ‭(b)‬ ‭Starr Farm Dog Park‬ ‭(c)‬ ‭Urban Reserve‬ ‭(2)‬ ‭Off-leash dogs are prohibited at the following parks. Dogs in these parks must be‬ l‭eashed at all times:‬ ‭(a)‬ ‭Appletree Park‬ ‭(b)‬ ‭Arms Park‬ ‭(c)‬ ‭Baird Park‬ ‭(d)‬ ‭Battery Park‬ ‭(e)‬ ‭Bike path‬ ‭(f)‬ ‭Champlain Street Park‬ ‭(g)‬ ‭City Hall Park‬ ‭(h)‬ ‭Dewey Park‬ ‭(i)‬ ‭Ethan Allen Park‬ ‭36‬ ‭City of Burlington, Vermont, Ord. of 9-23-02‬ ‭https://www.codepublishing.com/VT/Burlington/#!/BurlingtonAxD/BurlingtonAxD.html‬‭(Pilot program. The rules of‬ ‭this section shall be in full force and effect for eighteen (18) months. The director of parks and recreation shall‬ ‭review the impacts of the designated off-leash areas and shall make a report to the city council after twelve (12)‬ ‭months of operation. Unless directed otherwise by the city council, these rules shall expire upon the end of the‬ ‭18th month in which the rules were in effect.)‬ ‭48‬ Page 67 of 90  ‭(j)‬ ‭Kieslich Park except for the portion known as “Texaco Beach”‬ ‭(k)‬ ‭Lakeside Park‬ ‭(l)‬ ‭Little Park‬ ‭(m)‬‭MacKenzie Park‬ ‭(n)‬ ‭North Beach‬ ‭(o)‬ ‭Pomeroy Park‬ ‭(p)‬ ‭Potvin Park‬ ‭(q)‬ ‭Roosevelt Park‬ ‭(r)‬ ‭Schifilliti Park‬ ‭(s)‬ ‭Starr Farm Park except for the portion known as “Starr Farm Dog Park”‬ ‭(t)‬ ‭Water Works Park‬ ‭(u)‬ ‭Waterfront Park‬ ‭(C)‬ ‭Public Information.‬ ‭(1)‬ ‭PRW shall provide information about off-leash dog opportunities to include‬ ‭maps, hours, and references to rules & policies with onsite signage and through‬ i‭ts website.‬ ‭(2)‬ ‭PRW shall annually‬‭conduct a targeted campaign to‬‭educate the community about‬ ‭the City ordinances that pertain to off-leash dogs in general, and the the off-leash‬ ‭dog opportunities and associated rules and policies.‬‭.‬ ‭(3)‬ ‭Funds to implement Section C shall be made available to PRW from the fees‬ ‭collected pursuant to Article II Section 5-17.‬ ‭(D)‬ ‭General Rules for All Areas Designated as Off-Leash Dog Areas.‬ ‭(1)‬ ‭A person taking a dog into an off-leash area shall have the dog held on leash‬ ‭when entering and exiting the off-leash area.‬ ‭(2)‬ ‭A person taking a dog into an off-leash area shall maintain voice, hand, or leash‬ ‭control over the dog at all times while the dog is in the off-leash area. Such‬ ‭person shall have in their possession a leash at all times.‬ ‭(3)‬ ‭A person taking a dog into an off-leash area is responsible for all actions of the‬ ‭dog, shall keep the dog within their vision at all times, and shall remove the dog‬ ‭when their behavior‬‭is in violation of the City of‬‭Burlington Code of Ordinances,‬ i‭ncluding but not limited to Appendix D Secion 7, or the PRW OLDP.‬ ‭(4)‬ ‭The following are prohibited in off-leash dog areas:‬ ‭(a)‬ ‭Glass containers.‬ ‭(b)‬ ‭Female dogs in heat.‬ ‭(c)‬ ‭Excessive barking, howling, or other noise.‬ ‭(d)‬ ‭Bullying of other dogs.‬ ‭(e)‬ ‭Failure to remove feces; All feces shall be removed from the off-leash‬ ‭area and placed in the appropriate receptacle.‬ ‭(f)‬ ‭Unlicensed dogs; All dogs shall be licensed and display valid license tags.‬ ‭(g)‬ ‭Dangerous dogs as defined by Burlington Code of Ordinances, Article II,‬ ‭Section 5-13.‬ ‭(h)‬ ‭More than 3 dogs per person.‬ ‭(i)‬ ‭Children under 12 years of age unaccompanied by an adult.‬ ‭(E)‬ ‭Enforcement.‬ ‭(1)‬ ‭In addition to the penalties provided for by ordinance, a person or dog that‬ ‭violates the rules of this section is subject to ejection from the off-leash area as‬ ‭defined in the OLDP.‬ ‭49‬ Page 68 of 90  ‭(2)‬ ‭In addition to the penalties provided for by ordinance, a duly authorized‬ ‭enforcement officer may impound a dog for a violation of the rules of this‬ ‭section or for activities determined to be a nuisance.‬ ‭(3)‬ ‭In addition to the penalties provided for by ordinance, all violations of Appendix‬ ‭D and the OLDP include a restorative justice process with the Burlington‬ ‭Community Justice Center.‬ ‭(F)‬ ‭Administration.‬ ‭(1)‬ ‭Commercial Use of Parks. The PRW may issue a permit and charge a fee to allow‬ ‭for commercial use of off-leash dog areas by professional trainers, and for-profit‬ ‭and not-for-profit animal organizations. Portions of the off-leash dog areas shall‬ ‭remain available for unencumbered use by the public as off-leash areas during‬ ‭these events. Fees collected by PRW for commercial use shall be used for the‬ ‭establishment, operations, or improvements of designated off-leash dog areas.‬ ‭Commercial use of off-leash dog areas without a permit shall result in a fine as‬ ‭set for in Chapter 22 section 23 of the Burlington Code of Ordinances.‬ ‭Commercial use of off-leash dog areas may be further defined or modified by‬ ‭the OLDP.‬ ‭Proposed Off-Leash Dog Policy (OLDP)‬ ‭The following text has been drafted by the Dog Task Force as a proposed Off-Leash Dog‬ ‭Policy to be reviewed by the Parks Commission, and once an official OLDP is established, to‬ ‭be revised by the Parks Commission as needed.‬ ‭OFF-LEASH DOG POLICY‬ ‭Purpose:‬ ‭This policy incorporates by reference all rules set forth in Appendix D of the‬‭Burlington Code of‬ ‭Ordinances‬‭.‬ ‭Areas of Policy:‬ ‭1)‬ ‭Designation of Areas and Times of Operations‬ ‭2)‬ ‭Additional Rules for Use of Off-Leash Fenced Dog Areas‬ ‭3)‬ ‭Rules for Commercial Use of Off-Leash Dog Areas‬ ‭4)‬ ‭Signage‬ ‭5)‬ ‭Public Outreach & Enforcement‬ ‭6)‬ ‭Operations‬ ‭1)‬ ‭Designation of Areas and Times of Operations.‬‭‬ ‭The following areas are off-leash areas, as designated herein or on site:‬ ‭a)‬ ‭Fenced Dog Parks‬ i‭)‬ ‭Starr Farm Park (year-round).‬‭‬ ‭Times.‬‭The designated area may be used year-round‬‭from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.‬ ‭or sunset, whichever is earlier.‬ i‭i)‬ ‭Urban Reserve (year-round).‬‭‬ ‭Times.‬‭The designated area is open for off-leash use‬‭at any time.‬ ‭50‬ Page 69 of 90  i‭ii)‬ ‭Oakledge‬‭Park (year-round)‬ ‭Times.‬‭The designated area is open for off-leash use‬‭during the hours the parking‬ l‭ot is open for vehicle parking.‬ ‭b)‬ ‭Off-Leash areas (not fenced)‬ i‭)‬ ‭North End of Leddy Beach (year-round).‬‭The area north‬‭of the northernmost‬ ‭entrance to Leddy Beach‬ ‭Times.‬ ‭The designated area is open for off-leash‬‭use at any time.‬ i‭i)‬ ‭Oakledge Cove (year-round).‬ ‭The area of Oakledge‬‭Park known as Oakledge Cove‬ ‭Times.‬ ‭The designated area is open for off-leash‬‭use at any time‬ i‭ii)‬ ‭Northshore Natural Area (year-round)‬‭.‬ ‭Times. The designated is open for off-leash use at any time‬ i‭v)‬ ‭Blanchard Beach (seasonal)‬‭. The area of Oakledge Park‬‭known as Blanchard‬ ‭Beach‬ ‭Times‬‭. The designated area is open for off-leash use‬‭at any time between‬ ‭November - March‬ ‭v)‬ ‭Texaco Beach (year-round)‬‭. The beach area of Kieslich‬‭Park known as “Texaco”‬ ‭Beach.‬ ‭Times.‬‭The designated area is open for off-leash use‬‭at any time‬ ‭vi)‬ ‭Lower Calahan Park (year-round).‬ ‭The area of Calahan‬‭Park that is bounded on‬ ‭the east by the sledding hill, north by Locust Street, west by Pine Street, and‬ ‭south by the park/neighborhood boundary excluding programmed areas such as‬ ‭baseball fields, roads/walks, etc.‬ ‭Times.‬‭The designated area is open for off-leash use‬‭from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.‬ ‭vii)‬ ‭Open Area of Schmanska Park (year-round).‬‭The multipurpose‬‭field of Schmanska‬ ‭Park extending from the basketball court to the tennis court.‬ ‭Times.‬‭The designated area is open for off-leash use‬‭from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.‬ ‭viii)‬ ‭Open Area of Smalley Park (year-round)‬‭. The multipurpose‬‭field excluding the‬ ‭programmed softball field.‬ ‭Times‬‭. The designated area is open for off-leash use‬‭from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.‬ i‭x)‬ ‭Gravel Path of the Urban Reserve‬‭The area of the Urban‬‭Reserve that is the‬ ‭maintenance access running parallel to the train tracks between the designated‬ ‭off-leash area signs on the northern and southern ends.‬ ‭Times.‬‭The designated area is open for off-leash use‬ ‭at any time.‬ ‭2)‬ ‭Community Expectations for Use of Off-Leash Fenced Areas‬ ‭(1)‬ ‭In addition to the rules set forth in Appendix D, please observe the following‬ ‭guidelines:‬ ‭(a)‬ ‭Do not allow dogs to dig holes, except in an area designated for digging‬ ‭by the Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Department (PRW). The person‬ ‭accompanying the dog shall fill in any hole created by the dog prior to‬ ‭exiting the area.‬ ‭(b)‬ ‭Do not consume human food.‬ ‭(c)‬ ‭Do not feed other people’s dogs.‬ ‭(2)‬ ‭All gates to the dog park must be closed after entering and exiting.‬ ‭(3)‬ ‭The priority use for off-leash dog parks is off-leash dogs. Please ensure that‬ ‭children do not interfere with the activities of dogs in the park.‬ ‭51‬ Page 70 of 90  ‭3)‬ ‭Community Expectations for Use of Unfenced Off-Leash Areas‬ ‭In addition to the rules specified in Appendix D, please observe the following guidelines:‬ ‭(1)‬ ‭Ensure your dog is placed back on leash after leaving an off-leash dog area.‬ ‭(2)‬ ‭Dog guardians should be respectful of other users using the space. This is a‬ ‭shared space, even during the times where dogs are allowed off-leash. The‬ ‭priority use for these areas is not necessarily dogs.‬ ‭(3)‬ ‭Non-dog guardians should expect dogs may be running free in designated‬ ‭off-leash areas.‬ ‭4)‬ ‭Rules for Commercial Use of Off-Leash Fenced areas‬ ‭a)‬ ‭Commercial users are required to be a‬‭Park Program‬‭participant.‬ ‭b)‬ ‭Commercial users are responsible for creating any boundaries, with temporary‬ ‭fencing or by other temporary means, required to meet their needs and that of the‬ ‭other users.‬ ‭c)‬ ‭Commercial users are limited to twelve days per year exclusive of commercial uses‬ ‭that do not restrict other uses of the area.‬ ‭d)‬ ‭No more than one commercial user may use the same dog park concurrently.‬ ‭e)‬ ‭Off-leash dogs will be permitted to access any areas of the off-leash area that are‬ ‭not separated by temporary or permanent fencing.‬ ‭f)‬ ‭With the exception of extraordinary circumstances, no more than 33% of an‬ ‭off-leash dog area shall be permitted to be restricted for commercial use.‬ ‭g)‬ ‭Commercial use shall not interfere with standard entrances and exits from the‬ ‭off-leash dog area.‬ ‭h)‬ ‭If any PRW staff time is required for the event, commercial users of the park are‬ ‭responsible for all costs related to the staff time. PRW staff will only be made‬ ‭available with the approval of the PRW Director‬ i‭)‬ ‭Commercial users will be responsible for all costs related to set-up, operations,‬ ‭security, and cleanup for all events.‬ j‭)‬ ‭Standard PRW Department requirements for reserving parks apply.‬ ‭5)‬ ‭Public Outreach & Enforcement.‬ ‭a)‬ ‭The PRW and the Police Department shall collaborate to educate and enforce the‬ ‭rules and policies applicable to off-leash dog areas,A person who violates any rules‬ ‭or policies applicable to off-leash dog areas on two (2) occasions within a‬ ‭twelve-month period shall be barred from taking any dog into the off-leash areas‬ ‭during the six (6) months subsequent to the second violation.‬ ‭6)‬ ‭Operations‬ ‭a)‬ ‭The PRW shall maintain a volunteer group that provides guidance and support‬ ‭for off-leash areas‬ b)‬‭The PRW Director may, upon a finding of need at a particular off-leash area,‬ ‭ ‭close the area to off-leash use. The reopening of such area is at the discretion of‬ ‭the Director. The Director shall post a notice indicating that the area has been‬ ‭closed for off-leash use at the entrance to the area and at other locations in the‬ ‭area if needed to give notice to the public of the closing.‬ ‭52‬ Page 71 of 90 ‭Appendix G: Off-Leash Detailed Findings & Recommendations‬ ‭The Task Force reviewed work from previous committees (‬‭see Appendix K‬‭) as well as‬ ‭current practices, ordinances and policies. The group also did a city-wide survey to solicit‬ ‭public opinion on areas proposed by previous committees (‬‭see Appendix I‬‭). Prior efforts to‬ ‭create off-leash areas were left uncompleted, as Section 7 of Appendix D in the City‬ ‭Ordinances expired.‬37 ‭Table 3. Current and Proposed Off-Leash Areas for Dogs‬ ‭Current‬ ‭Proposed‬ ‭Off-Leash‬ ‭3.5/520 acres‬ ‭Add:‬ ‭Starr Farm Dog Park‬ ‭●‬ ‭Sections of Neighborhood Parks‬ ‭Waterfront Dog Park‬ ‭(Smalley, Calahan, Schmanska)‬ ‭Texaco Beach‬ ‭6-8am‬ ‭●‬ ‭Sections of Natural Areas‬ ‭(Northshore, Urban Reserve)‬ ‭●‬ ‭Beaches (Blanchard, North Beach‬ ‭wintertime only; Oakledge Cove &‬ ‭section of Leddy Beach all year)‬ ‭Keep:‬ ‭●‬ ‭Starr Farm Dog Park, Waterfront Dog‬ ‭Park, Texaco Beach‬ ‭On-Leash only (Neighborhood Park)‬ ‭All Neighborhood Parks‬ ‭Most Neighborhood Parks except for‬ ‭designated areas in Calahan, Schmanska, &‬ ‭Smalley Parks‬ ‭On-Leash only (Conservation Area)‬ ‭All Natural Areas‬ ‭Same (all areas designated “Urban Wilds” -‬ ‭such as Arms Forest, Crescent Woods, Arthur‬ ‭Park, Ethan Allen Park, McKenzie Park, and‬ ‭Mount Cavalry Red Maple)‬ ‭No Dogs Allowed‬ ‭Cemeteries‬ ‭Same (at the wish of Cemetery Commission)‬ ‭Interactive map showing proposed off-leash areas‬ ‭There is a strong desire from dog owners to have easy access to off-leash areas. More‬ ‭fenced in areas exclude non-dogs and their caretakers from spaces in our parks, and the‬ ‭City also lacks funds to build fenced in dog parks. Many communities have turned to‬ ‭unleashed dog areas to solve the issue of limited park spaces and the desire not to fence‬ ‭37‬ ‭City of Burlington, Vermont, Ord. of 9-23-02‬ ‭https://www.codepublishing.com/VT/Burlington/#!/BurlingtonAxD/BurlingtonAxD.html‬‭(Pilot program. The rules of‬ ‭this section shall be in full force and effect for eighteen (18) months. The director of parks and recreation shall‬ ‭review the impacts of the designated off-leash areas and shall make a report to the city council after twelve (12)‬ ‭months of operation. Unless directed otherwise by the city council, these rules shall expire upon the end of the‬ ‭18th month in which the rules were in effect.)‬ ‭53‬ Page 72 of 90 ‭these spaces, while providing a mechanism to better regulate and manage where dogs are‬ ‭off-leash and enforce regulations that they be on leash outside of off-leash areas. The‬ ‭question of creating unfenced off-leash dog areas elicits strong opinions both for and‬ ‭against.‬ ‭Some neighboring cities have successfully created unfenced off-leash areas. South‬ ‭Burlington allows dogs to be under voice control at all parks and only requires leashes on‬ ‭South Burlington Recreation trails and at the following parks: Red Rocks, Vet Memorial, and‬ ‭Jaycee Park. Colchester’s default policy is also off-leash, with dogs required on-leash only‬ ‭on sidewalks and the bike path. Winooski’s policy is similar to Burlington’s, where the‬ ‭default is on-leash only. But for similar reasons they are‬ ‭exploring the possibility of establishing another location or two‬ ‭where dogs can officially be allowed off-leash, then working to‬ ‭tighten up enforcement where it isn’t allowed.‬ ‭Some efforts were made to find alternative spaces to the park‬ ‭spaces overseen by Burlington Parks & Recreation.‬ ‭●‬ ‭Cemetery spaces.‬‭The Task Force discussed the fact‬‭that‬ ‭some fenced in spaces in Burlington currently exist but‬ ‭are not available for dogs. The idea of using cemetery‬ ‭spaces as an urban solution is not new.‬38 ‭A proposal‬‭to work with the Cemetery‬ ‭Commission to consider the option of on-leash or off-leash use for dogs was‬ ‭unsuccessful. The Cemetery Commision heard the proposal, including the possibility‬ ‭of additional revenue and volunteer hands to maintain the cemeteries, but chose‬ ‭not to work with the Task Force to explore this concept.‬39 ‭●‬ ‭Spaces outside Burlington.‬‭At the suggestion of City‬‭Councilmember Sarah Carpenter,‬ 40 ‭the Task Force looked beyond Burlington to understand‬‭what off-leash spaces‬ ‭were available (for those with cars who can drive). As noted above, our neighboring‬ ‭38‬ ‭For example, see the Cemetery Dogs program at the‬‭Congressional Cemetery in Washington, DC - one quarter of‬ ‭the cemetery’s operating income derives from donations by dog walking members and covers the costs of grounds‬ ‭maintenance contracts. Source: https://congressionalcemetery.org/dog-walking/‬ ‭39‬ ‭See‬‭Burlington, VT Cemetery Commission meeting minutes‬‭from their April 20, 2023 meeting:‬ ‭https://burlingtonvt.portal.civicclerk.com/event/5294/files/7035‬ ‭40‬ ‭See‬‭Burlington, VT City Council meeting minutes from‬‭their March 27, 2023 meeting:‬ ‭https://burlingtonvt.portal.civicclerk.com/event/2058/files/2159‬ ‭54‬ Page 73 of 90  ‭communities of South Burlington and Colchester have much less restrictive leash‬ l‭aws, allowing off-leash use in their parks unless specifically restricted. In addition,‬ ‭South Burlington, Essex, Milton and Shelburne have fenced dog parks.‬ ‭●‬ ‭Former Landfill in the Old North End.‬‭The Task Force‬‭also discussed the former landfill‬ ‭area at the top of Manhattan Ave. This area is currently being used by some‬ ‭residents as an off-leash area for dogs, but due to continued monitoring of‬ ‭environmental considerations cannot be officially set up for dogs at this time.‬ ‭After reviewing the prior task force work, the results of the Spring 2023 survey, and‬ ‭consulting with the Cemetery Commission and directors of parks in neighboring towns, the‬ ‭Task Force recommends the following areas to the Parks Commission for piloting. More‬ ‭specific details are in the drafted‬‭Off-Leash Dog‬‭Policy‬‭.‬ ‭Table 4. Recommended areas to pilot unfenced off-leash dog sections‬ ‭Park‬ ‭Time‬ ‭Rationale‬ ‭Smalley‬ ‭6-8am‬ ‭Significant requests from survey; limited use by youth in the mornings‬ ‭Leddy Beach‬ ‭All day‬ ‭Slight in favor from survey, significant current use‬ ‭(north end)‬ ‭Northshore‬ ‭All day‬ ‭Slight in favor from survey, significant current use‬ ‭Calahan Park‬ ‭6-8am‬ ‭Slight in favor from survey, proposed area (lower field) is in a different‬ l‭ocation from the playground; significant current use‬ ‭Schmanska‬ ‭6-8am‬ ‭Slight in favor, Recommended by 2013 task force, adds an area in the‬ ‭Park‬ ‭East end of Burlington, suggest morning only‬ ‭Urban Reserve‬ ‭All day‬ ‭More in favor, off-leash connection to dog park and parking lot, will‬ ‭separate from bike path w/ clear signage on start/stop of off-leash areas‬ ‭Blanchard‬ ‭November‬ ‭Limited beach use in the winter.‬ ‭Beach‬ ‭-March‬ ‭North Beach‬ ‭November‬ ‭Limited beach use in the winter.‬ ‭-March‬ ‭Oakledge Cove‬ ‭All day‬ ‭South end water access, helps curb existing off-leash use at Blanchard‬ i‭n the summer.‬ ‭55‬ Page 74 of 90 ‭In addition to the above areas, the proposed fenced-in dog park in Oakledge Park was by‬ ‭far the most popular and most supported area with survey respondents. Future funding‬ ‭and significant planning would be needed to make this a reality.‬ ‭56‬ Page 75 of 90 ‭Appendix H: Education Campaign‬ ‭Part of the scope of the Task Force work mandated by the City Council resolution requested‬ ‭that Task Force members conduct an educational campaign around the following issues:‬ ‭1.‬ ‭Off leash dogs in city parks, natural areas or beaches‬ ‭2.‬ ‭Dogs attacking people or other dogs‬ ‭3.‬ ‭Dog feces not being picked up‬ ‭4.‬ ‭Dog barking contributing to noise pollution‬ ‭All materials and research were developed using volunteer time‬ ‭and resources. Outreach was limited to available slots on the‬ ‭Parks Recreation and Waterfront (PRW) Front Porch Forum and‬ ‭social media accounts. The Task Force recommends some funding‬ ‭be allocated to educational outreach and that multiple city‬ ‭departments participate in the sharing of information on their‬ ‭social media accounts. The campaigns comprised of the following:‬ ‭1.‬ ‭Leash Your Dog PSA for conservation reasons (wildlife,‬ ‭plants)‬41 ‭2.‬ ‭Interview with Seven Days to address additional reasons‬ ‭for leashing your dogs (including prevent of attacks)‬42 ‭3.‬ ‭April Stools Day PSA to encourage residents to pick up their dogs’ feces‬43 ‭4.‬ ‭Barking PSA to provide helpful tips to address barking and reduce noise pollution‬ ‭The Task Force also explored the possibility of increasing licensing numbers through a‬ l‭imited social media drive,‬44 ‭and worked with the BPRW‬‭to create the Wag the Waterfront‬ ‭event.‬ ‭41‬ ‭As seen in PRW’s Front Porch Forum post May 18, 2022:‬ ‭https://frontporchforum.com/areas/22/issues/4452#post_2786297‬ ‭42‬ ‭Mullis, R. (Aug 9, 2023). One Burlingtonian’s Journey‬‭to On-Leash Dog Ownership. Published in print as “Going to‬ ‭the Dogs | One Burlingtonian's journey to on-leash dog ownership” and online at‬ ‭https://www.sevendaysvt.com/arts-culture/one-burlingtonians-journey-to-on-leash-dog-ownership-38844346‬ ‭43‬ ‭As seen in PRW’s Front Porch Forum Post April 1,‬‭2022:‬ ‭https://frontporchforum.com/areas/23/issues/5456#post_2747458‬ ‭44‬ ‭Instagram reel created by task force members on volunteer time, and shared on PRW’s Instagram account on‬ ‭March 21, 2023 to encourage residents to license their dogs and explain how to get their dogs licensed.‬ ‭https://www.facebook.com/reel/936523320687771‬ ‭57‬ Page 76 of 90 ‭Proposed Annual Education Calendar‬ ‭A proposed calendar to continue providing education on various‬ ‭Legend:‬ ‭topics was developed and is shown below, followed by details on the‬ ‭PSA‬ ‭various public service announcements as well as the Wag the‬ ‭Campaign/Drive‬ ‭Event‬ ‭Waterfront event.‬ ‭JANUARY‬ ‭FEBRUARY‬ ‭MARCH‬ ‭Barking PSA‬ ‭Repeat Spay/Neuter PSA‬ ‭Licensing Campaign‬ ‭(February is S/N Awareness‬ ‭Continues‬ ‭Month)‬ ‭Campaign/Drive: Dog‬ ‭Licenses Due April 1‬ ‭APRIL‬ ‭MAY‬ ‭JUNE‬ ‭Off-Leash PSA‬ ‭Don’t Leave Your Dog in the‬ ‭Keep Your Dog Cool PSA‬ ‭(Conservation)‬ ‭Car PSA‬ ‭Don’t Leave Your Dog in the‬ ‭Picking up Poop PSA‬ ‭Off-Leash Dog PSA (to avoid‬ ‭Car PSA (repeat July/Aug)‬ ‭conflicts attacks)‬ ‭JULY‬ ‭AUGUST‬ ‭SEPTEMBER‬ ‭Off-Leash Dog PSA (to avoid‬ ‭conflicts attacks)‬ ‭Off-Leash Dog PSA (to avoid‬ ‭Wag the Waterfront Event‬ ‭conflicts attacks)‬ ‭Dog Days Event‬ ‭Church Street tie-in for pet friendly‬ ‭shopping areas or Burlington‬ ‭Farmer’s Market on Pine St‬ ‭OCTOBER‬ ‭NOVEMBER‬ ‭DECEMBER‬ ‭(a week after leaf pick up)‬ ‭Halloween Parade Event?‬ ‭Spay/Neuter PSA‬ ‭Dog Costume Contest?‬ ‭Poop Scoop PSA Even‬ ‭through winter need to scoop‬ ‭poop all year round‬ ‭58‬ Page 77 of 90 ‭Leash Your Dog Outreach (7 Days Article)‬ ‭Taskforce members Maria Karunuñgan and Abbey Duke were interviewed by journalist‬ ‭Rachel Mullis of Seven Days to weigh in on thoughts about off-leash dogs, resulting in the‬ ‭following publication in Seven Days:‬45 ‭The take-home message in the article was to encourage residents to leash their dogs for a‬ ‭variety of reasons, including respect and consideration for others’ cultural and religious‬ ‭preferences, prevention of unwanted conflict between unfamiliar dogs with unknown‬ ‭sociability, and generally taking more responsibility for their dogs’ behavior around others.‬ ‭Wag the Waterfront Event September 2023‬ ‭●‬ ‭PRW hosted on September 9, 2023 1-4pm‬46 ‭●‬ ‭Social media posts invited people to come‬47 ‭●‬ ‭The event featured the following:‬ ‭○‬ ‭Afternoon Yappy Hour in the dog park‬ ‭○‬ ‭Free professional caricatures & free‬ ‭professional photos‬ ‭45‬ ‭Mullis, R. (Aug 9, 2023). One Burlingtonian’s Journey‬‭to On-Leash Dog Ownership. Published in print as “Going to‬ ‭the Dogs | One Burlingtonian's journey to on-leash dog ownership” and online at‬ ‭https://www.sevendaysvt.com/arts-culture/one-burlingtonians-journey-to-on-leash-dog-ownership-38844346‬ ‭46‬ ‭See‬‭https://enjoyburlington.com/event/wag-the-waterfront/‬ ‭47‬ ‭See‬‭for example https://www.instagram.com/p/Cw7iosEMae4/‬ ‭59‬ Page 78 of 90  ‭○‬ ‭Booths rented by local dog-related businesses (daycares, groomers, dog‬ ‭trainers, dog treat bakeries, etc).‬ ‭○‬ ‭Events such as dog training demos, Paws & Poses yoga, and weight-pulling‬ ‭Public Service Announcements Developed by the Task Force‬ ‭The following public service announcements were developed by the Task Force for several‬ ‭educational campaigns. Most of these were shared on social media.‬ ‭Excessive Barking PSA‬ ‭The Task Force wrote a public service announcement to address the complaint of excessive‬ ‭barking.‬48 ‭The main points of this campaign were to‬‭help raise awareness about why‬ ‭excessive barking is bad (pointing to upset neighbors, welfare issues, & violation of city‬ ‭code). Tips from a professional trainer were provided, including the recommendation to‬ ‭consult with a veterinarian and professional trainer if struggles continued.‬ ‭Fig. 4 Barking PSA Instagram slides‬ ‭Leash Your Dog PSA‬ ‭The Leash Your Dog PSA released in May 2022‬49 ‭contained‬‭the following text:‬ ‭:: A MESSAGE FROM THE DOG TASK FORCE ::‬ ‭Protect Nature - Leash Furry Companions in Vermont's Natural Areas‬ ‭Spring is nature's time to restore and grow, and also nature's most fragile time. Burlington's‬ ‭natural areas are still in recovery from forest clearing hundreds of years ago and use this‬ ‭48‬ ‭See for example the Facebook post on February 16,‬‭2023:‬ ‭https://www.facebook.com/BTVParks/posts/pfbid04CsSzqckLeKfr2BHiVhVsYssx3KDYdthXt4CysmTxeATD2FNqeig9Sh‬ ‭eDXinqKhpl‬ ‭49‬ ‭PRW’s Front Porch Forum post May 18, 2022:‬ ‭https://frontporchforum.com/areas/22/issues/4452#post_2786297‬ ‭60‬ Page 79 of 90  ‭time to replace and regain strength. Spring flowers have delicate stems and depend on small‬ ‭ground insects, like ants, to help them expand their population.‬ ‭Larger, similarly tender mammals like foxes are born now through August! For these‬ ‭animals, reproduction takes a lot of energy and kits, pups and their parents are weaker and‬ ‭especially vulnerable throughout this season.‬ ‭Off-leash dogs (and their owners) unknowingly break tender wildflower stems and chase or‬ ‭even fatally maim baby animals, setting back the tiny steps that ecosystems take each spring‬ ‭towards restoration.‬ ‭Please walk your dog on a leash on all trails and paths throughout City and Vermont parks.‬ ‭Obey on-leash postings to allow Vermont's forests to regain their species diversity and to‬ ‭save our wildlife. To learn more about spring wildflowers and to see the cutest red fox kit‬ ‭photo, please see our facebook page‬‭https://www.facebook.com/BTVParks‬‭.‬ ‭Scoop the Poop PSA‬ ‭The Scoop the Poop PSA (“April Stools Day”) released in April 2022‬50 ‭contained the following‬ ‭text:‬ ‭On behalf of the Burlington Dog Task Force Team, we'd like to remind everyone: Scoop Your‬ ‭Poop!‬ ‭Pet waste should be picked up promptly because it…‬ ‭-> is harmful for kids playing in the dirt‬ ‭-> contaminates locally grown food‬ ‭-> contaminates drinking water and swimming areas‬ ‭…. is gross!!!!‬ ‭With the weather warming and snow finally melted, we want to encourage all dog owners to‬ ‭pick up their dog's poop! (and any poop you see from other dogs, even if they are not your‬ ‭own).‬ ‭Pet waste is harmful for children playing in your local neighborhood as parasites from fecal‬ ‭matter can remain in the soil for years. Picking up poop can also go a long way to protecting‬ l‭ocal gardens especially if you are growing food for yourselves, and protect anyone working‬ ‭or playing in the dirt. In addition, please keep in mind our drinking water is affected as well!‬ ‭According to the Lake Champlain Committee, pet waste contributes up to one-third of‬ ‭bacterial pollution in waterways near developed areas. (source:‬ ‭https://www.lakechamplaincommittee.org/learn/news/item/2200-stool-piles-and-counting/‬‭)‬ ‭Bacteria from pet waste adds e-coli that can result in the closing of recreational swimming‬ ‭areas.‬ ‭Help us protect our children's play areas, neighborhood gardens, and local swimming spots‬ ‭by picking up your dog's poop!‬ ‭50‬ ‭PRW’s Front Porch Forum Post April 1, 2022: https://frontporchforum.com/areas/23/issues/5456#post_2747458‬ ‭61‬ Page 80 of 90 ‭Recommended Additional Areas of Educational Outreach‬ ‭The Task Force recommends the following additional areas of education:‬ ‭●‬ ‭Education on preventing dog attacks & conflicts with other dogs & people‬ ‭●‬ ‭Resource for new arrivals (either new residents of Burlington who have dogs, or‬ ‭current residents who get a new dog)‬ ‭●‬ ‭How/when to report incidents & what information is helpful‬ ‭●‬ ‭Guidelines for behavior of dogs in designated off-leash areas‬ ‭●‬ ‭Education/information that can be distributed on the cards that accompany dog‬ l‭icense tags‬ ‭●‬ ‭Curriculum for community justice center, should a restorative justice approach be‬ ‭adopted for resolving violations of dog policies & ordinances.‬ ‭●‬ ‭Low-cost spay/neuter outreach‬ ‭62‬ Page 81 of 90 ‭Appendix I: Data Summaries (Police Incident Reports, Off-Leash Survey)‬ ‭The Task Force analyzed animal incident reports provided by the Burlington Police‬ ‭Department (BPD) and results of an off-leash survey conducted by the Department of Parks‬ ‭Recreation Waterfront (PRW).‬ ‭2019 Dog and Cat Incident Reports Analysis‬ ‭The Task Force analyzed data from 467 incidents involving companion animals (cats and‬ ‭dogs) that were reported in the calendar year 2019. The effort to summarize the data and‬ ‭analyze it was time-consuming, as the data were presented to the task force as individual‬ ‭PDF files with written details of each incident. To make sense of these written reports, a‬ ‭dataset was created by pulling the following variables from each report: date, time, incident‬ ‭number, origin of call, animal type, location of incident, incident details, and resolution.‬ ‭Incident details consisted of a summary of what was reported by the caller to dispatch.‬ ‭Resolution consisted of the responding officer’s response and/or a more detailed‬ ‭description of the incident. The “Incident Type” variable in the data set was then broken‬ ‭down into dog-related or cat-related incidents, and assigned a category.‬ ‭63‬ Page 82 of 90 ‭Dog-Related Incidents‬ ‭Reported dog incidents were categorized as follows (in order by the number of incidents‬ ‭reported in 2019):‬ ‭●‬ ‭Dog in Vehicle:‬‭Vehicle was gone on arrival (GOA),‬‭Dog did not appear to be in‬ ‭distress (guardian of vehicle not present or mentioned in the incident report), Dog‬ ‭did not appear to be in distress and the guardian returned to their vehicle and the‬ ‭officer was able to speak to the guardian about the dangers of leaving a dog in a car;‬ ‭or Dog was in distress. (109)‬ ‭●‬ ‭Loose Dog / Dog At Large:‬‭(89)‬ ‭●‬ ‭Found Dog:‬‭(65)‬ ‭●‬ ‭Dog Bite:‬‭Dog bite to another dog, Dog bite to a person,‬‭Dog bite to both a‬ ‭dog/person, Dog bite to a cat, Dog bite to unknown person or animal. (57)‬ ‭●‬ ‭Excessive Noise:‬‭Barking, whining, and/or howling‬‭(46)‬ ‭●‬ ‭Welfare Concern:‬‭Issues related to an animal's well-being‬‭and safety including but not‬ l‭imited to possible animal neglect, animal abuse, and injured animals. (34)‬ ‭●‬ ‭Miscellaneous:‬‭Examples are guardianship disputes,‬‭how to surrender an animal,‬ ‭requests for behavioral training assistance, and how to obtain care for an animal‬ ‭while the guardian is hospitalized. (14)‬ ‭●‬ ‭Nuisance:‬‭(11)‬ ‭●‬ ‭Lost Dog:‬‭(4)‬ ‭●‬ ‭Dog Aggression Concern:‬‭(3)‬ ‭●‬ ‭Deceased Animal:‬‭(2)‬ ‭64‬ Page 83 of 90 ‭Cat-Related Incidents‬ ‭●‬ ‭Deceased Animal:‬‭(15)‬ ‭●‬ ‭Welfare Concern:‬‭(7) Issues related to an animal's‬‭well-being and safety including but‬ ‭not limited to possible animal neglect, animal abuse, and injured animals‬ ‭●‬ ‭Loose Cat / At Large:‬‭(4)‬ ‭●‬ ‭Cat Bite:‬‭(3)‬ ‭●‬ ‭Found Cat:‬‭(2)‬ ‭●‬ ‭Miscellaneous:‬‭Example: Request for behavioral training‬‭assistance. (1)‬ ‭Cat Incident Reports.‬‭Almost half of police incident‬‭reports concerning domesticated cats‬ i‭nvolved the reporting of a deceased cat (45.7%). People reporting these incidents were‬ ‭concerned about cats and other cat related incidents included welfare concerns (20%),‬ l‭oose cats (11.4%), and found cats (5.7%). Cat bites made up 8.6% of all cat related incident‬ ‭reports. Because residents know that general issues with cats (cat welfare, lost cats, etc) are‬ ‭not handled by CSOs, the number of cat incidents is likely to be grossly underreported.‬ ‭65‬ Page 84 of 90 ‭Spring 2023 Off-Leash Survey Analysis‬ ‭Based on the work of the previous task force & work groups (‬‭see Appendix K‬‭), areas‬ ‭recommended for off-leash usage were reviewed by the committee based on current‬ ‭usage, and a proposal for areas to pilot was derived. This proposal was included in a survey‬ ‭to get feedback from the community. Based on feedback and information about current‬ ‭off-leash use by residents, the pilot areas were further revised. For example, Roosevelt and‬ ‭Schmanska were removed from consideration, based on quantitative survey opinions and‬ ‭written comments. Leddy Park Trails was also removed from consideration, in spite of‬ ‭quantitative results in favor of, due to important written considerations brought up by‬ ‭community members in the open comments portion.‬ ‭Quantitative Survey Results‬ ‭Fig. 5. Community members’ opinions about proposed off-leash areas.‬ ‭66‬ Page 85 of 90 ‭Table 4. Community members’ opinions about proposed off-leash areas‬ ‭LOCATION‬ ‭IN FAVOR‬ ‭AGAINST‬ ‭NEUTRAL‬ ‭Baird Park‬ ‭353 (37.04%)‬ ‭368 (38.61%)‬ ‭232 (24.34%)‬ ‭Calahan Park‬ ‭422 (43.11%)‬ ‭392 (40.04%)‬ ‭165 (16.85%)‬ ‭Leddy Park Trails‬ ‭467 (46.93%)‬ ‭433 (43.52%)‬ ‭95 (9.55%)‬ ‭Roosevelt Park‬ ‭352 (36.9%)‬ ‭405 (42.45%)‬ ‭197 (20.65%)‬ ‭Schmanska Park‬ ‭369 (39.13%)‬ ‭349 (37.01%)‬ ‭225 (23.86%)‬ ‭Leddy Beach (north end)‬ ‭445 (46.99%)‬ ‭429 (45.30%)‬ ‭73 (7.71%)‬ ‭Northshore Natural Area (south end)‬ ‭414 (45.25%)‬ ‭387 (42.30%)‬ ‭114 (12.46%)‬ ‭Oakledge Dog Park (new fenced area)‬ ‭542 (57.48%)‬ ‭303 (32.13%)‬ ‭98 (10.39%)‬ ‭Urban Reserve (near rail tracks)‬ ‭433 (47.22%)‬ ‭375 (40.89%)‬ ‭109 (11.89%)‬ ‭Qualitative Survey Results (Analysis/Coding of Written Comments)‬ ‭In addition to the quantitative survey collected, the Task Force compiled 631 written‬ ‭comments from respondents providing additional opinions and suggestions regarding‬ ‭off-leash areas and dog parks (61% of respondents left one or more comments). Many‬ ‭comments focused on specific proposed locations, or suggested additional locations not‬ i‭ncluded in the survey. Comments fell into the following categories or theme (in order by‬ ‭the number of comments received in the categories):‬ ‭●‬ ‭Appreciate off-leash areas as option:‬‭Commenters felt‬‭there were not enough‬ ‭off-leash areas or appreciated the city was investigating additional off-leash spaces‬ ‭for dogs. (202)‬ ‭●‬ ‭Dog parks only:‬‭Commenters felt off-leash areas should‬‭only be provided strictly in‬ ‭fenced-in dog parks designated for dogs, and that there should not be designated‬ ‭unfenced areas. (143)‬ ‭●‬ ‭Nuisance behavior / Environmental impact‬‭. Commenters‬‭expressed concern over the‬ ‭negative impact of dogs in general - contributing to noise, annoying people, or‬ ‭trampling local plants/killing wildlife especially in conservation areas. (122)‬ ‭67‬ Page 86 of 90  ‭●‬ ‭Enforcement & Reporting:‬‭Commenters asked for more accessible complaint forms,‬ ‭stronger consequences for existing ordinance infractions, or complained that they‬ ‭never saw enforcement happen, and this made them leery of offering off-leash‬ ‭areas. (121)‬ ‭●‬ ‭Park-specific.‬‭Commenters made a comment about a specific‬‭park, such as‬ ‭requesting we consider Smalley Park for off-leash. (100)‬ ‭●‬ ‭Safety‬‭. Commenters were concerned about aggressive‬‭dogs, or dogs jumping‬ ‭on/injuring people (small children were often mentioned). (67)‬ ‭●‬ ‭Time/season complexity:‬‭Commenters felt the initial‬‭survey’s multiple sets of‬ ‭disparate times per individual park would lead to a lot of confusion and possibly be‬ ‭difficult to enforce. (39)‬ ‭●‬ ‭Comments for other public land-owners‬‭. Commenters‬‭suggested offering areas not‬ ‭governed by the city of Burlington as possibilities for off-leash. (38)‬ ‭●‬ ‭Education:‬‭Commenters asked for increased education‬‭around rules, requested‬ ‭more signage and clarity so that community members knew which rules applied in‬ ‭which parks and where. (25)‬ ‭●‬ ‭Cultural impact‬‭. Commenters expressed concern for‬‭individuals whose cultural or‬ ‭religious practices may be adversely affected by allowing off-leash dogs in unfenced‬ ‭spaces (this was especially common in reference to Roosevelt Park) (17)‬ ‭●‬ ‭Neighborhood park concerns.‬‭Commenters made suggestions‬‭for specific parks. (17)‬ ‭●‬ ‭Tag / Permit Concept‬‭. Commenters thought that some‬‭off-leash areas should be‬ ‭provided on a tag or permit basis. (16)‬ ‭●‬ ‭Accessibility‬‭. Commenters were concerned about more‬‭off-leash spaces being‬ ‭accessible to people who don’t have cars and need to walk their dogs to an available‬ ‭off-leash area. (10)‬ ‭●‬ ‭Comparison to other cities‬‭. Commenters made positive‬‭or negative comparisons of‬ ‭Burlington to other cities (usually to complain that Burlington was not dog-friendly‬ ‭enough, but sometimes to complain that it was too dog-friendly). (8)‬ ‭●‬ ‭No off-leash‬‭. Commenters felt dogs should not be allowed‬‭off-leash anywhere in‬ ‭Burlington. (6)‬ ‭●‬ ‭No additional comment‬‭. 39% of respondents did not‬‭leave a comment‬ ‭68‬ Page 87 of 90 ‭After reviewing the written comments and quantitative data, decisions were made to‬ ‭remove the following proposed off-leash areas from consideration by the Parks‬ ‭Commission as a pilot, for the reasons stated below:‬ ‭●‬ ‭Leddy Trails (concerns about wildlife disruption)‬ ‭●‬ ‭Roosevelt Park (concerns about aversive effect on neighborhood cultural practices)‬ ‭●‬ ‭Baird Park (concerns about how close the proposed dog play area would be to the‬ ‭children’s playground)‬ ‭The survey also collected feedback from respondents on areas that had not been included,‬ ‭to see if there should be additional areas considered.‬ ‭●‬ ‭Smalley Park came up frequently and as a result, Smalley was added to the list of‬ ‭pilot areas.‬ ‭●‬ ‭Many commenters requested additional locations not under the purview of PRW to‬ ‭be made off-leash (for example, Red Rocks or Ethan Allan Homestead, both of which‬ ‭require dogs to be on-leash and are not part of PRW).‬ ‭69‬ Page 88 of 90 ‭Appendix J: Task Force Progress Reports to City Council PACC Committee‬ ‭The Task Force submitted progress reports to the‬‭City‬‭Council PACC Committee‬‭on the‬ ‭following dates.‬ ‭2022-03-01‬ ‭2023-02-23‬ ‭2023-08-23‬ ‭Appendix K: History of Prior Task Force Work‬ ‭In 1998, the City chose to pilot five locations for off-leash areas. They included Starr Farm‬ ‭Park, Urban Reserve, Intervale, Schmanska and Oakledge Park. Two areas, Starr Farm and‬ ‭Urban Reserve, exist today as off-leash fenced parks. The language for the program still‬ ‭exists in the City Ordinances under Appendix D, section 7, Rules and Regulations of the‬ ‭Burlington Parks and Recreation Park. The section became no longer enforceable in‬ ‭approximately 2002 as the pilot ran out without any information that indicates that the City‬ ‭Council took action.‬ ‭In 2011, the City Council created a work group to revise and formalize the pilot program‬ ‭started in 1998. After two years, the workgroup recommended that the South, Center and‬ ‭North end of the City all have options for dogs off-leash. They also specified four parks‬ ‭off-leash areas would not be permitted including Burlington Greenway, Battery Park, City‬ ‭Hall Park and Champlain Street Park. They suggested that Starr Farm and Urban Reserve‬ ‭fenced dog parks be listed in the ordinance and that the non-fenced areas be listed in a‬ ‭new off-leash dog policy rather than an ordinance. The off-leash dog policy would be‬ ‭approved by the Parks Commission and not through City Council.‬ ‭The suggested off-leash areas from the 2011-2013 report included Leddy Park, Oakledge‬ ‭Park, Calahan Park, Schmanska Park, Waterfront Park (in addition to the fenced area), and‬ ‭Roosevelt Park. It was a mix of year-round and seasonal and any time of day to specified‬ ‭times of day. The Parks, Recreation & Waterfront (BPRW) department started a Parks‬ ‭70‬ Page 89 of 90 ‭Comprehensive Plan process around the time of the final report. With that process starting,‬ ‭the decision was made to pause the off-leash work to see what came out of the‬ ‭comprehensive plan. It did not get picked back up again following the release of the 2015‬ ‭Comprehensive Plan.‬ ‭In 2019, the current BPRW Director started to move forward with the work from 2011-2013‬ ‭meeting with PACC and the Parks Commission. The suggestion was made by the Parks‬ ‭Commission to survey the community as quite a bit of time had passed from the 2011-2013‬ ‭work. Before sending out the survey, the pandemic hit and once again, the project stalled.‬ ‭71‬ Page 90 of 90