Parks Commission

Regular Meeting

Burlington, VT · August 12, 2025

Minutes

Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting August 12th, 2025 at 5:30pm 645 Pine St. Front Conference Room & Zoom Commissioners in attendance: Nate Lantieri, Kirstin Boehm, Katie Flanagan Mobley, Halle Davis & Ryan Bergmann Staff in attendance: Deryk Roach, Jon Adams-Kolitz, Meghan O’Daniel & Charles Dillard Members of the public in attendance: Aaron Keech & Cameron Lauf 1. Agenda 1.1 Motion to amend/adopt agenda Lantieri opened the meeting at 5:45pm after some technical difficulties by welcoming everyone. Lantieri asked someone to make a motion to adopt the amendment and approve the agenda. Boehm made the motion to adopt the amendment, Davis seconded. All were in favor, none were opposed. 2. Consent Agenda 2.1 – 2.9 attachments Lantieri asked if anyone had any questions or changes to any items on the consent agenda. Boehm asked about a date clarification for GBGSL and O’Daniel confirmed that October 11th was the correct date. Lantieri asked if anyone had a motion to approve. Mobley made a motion to accept the consent agenda, Davis seconded. All were in favor, none were opposed. 3. New North End Plan 3.1 Review with Charles Dillard (verbal) Dillard began by introducing himself and explained that he was there to share a comprehensive area plan for the New North End. He shared the screen and offered to focus on some of the development topics for this presentation. He began by sharing that this is about a 13-month project that kicked off in January, which has evolved through envisioning work with community engagement. He continued to say that they have transitioned into the planning process with online engagement available until the end of the month and that there will be more community engagement to pull the plan together by the end of the year. He continued by sharing the 4 main topics of this plan: Identity of the New North End, Transportation and Mobility Options, Balancing Growth and Greenspace, and Identifying Growth Areas. He shared that all of this work is happening within the framework of Plan BTV, which includes the State’s housing target – which for 2050 is 7,000 units. He said to put it in context, Burlington has been creating 77 units per year, and this would mean it would need to be upped to about 280 units per year. He continued that the need for housing is ever-present in this work to hit that number but to also hit the housing affordability challenge that is felt across the State. The guiding principles that have risen to the top are: Foster a strong and inclusive sense of community, expand housing choice and affordability, create a safer, more connected transportation network, strengthen neighborhood centers and walkable mixed-use areas, protect and enhance natural areas, and prioritizing sustainability and green infrastructure. The next slide showed areas that the community identified as potential growth based on parcel sizes and estimated property transfer. Dillard continued that the framework made it clear that there is a desire for walkability and more community spaces in these areas and that housing options need to be diverse. There is a discrepancy between what housing is available and what is needed. He shared that the parks in the New North End have the most park space per capita because it also has the lowest population density. He continued that, alongside the Plan BTV update, BPRW is undergoing a new system plan updated from 2015, and also a new City-wide economic development and transportation plan is being developed. Dillard shared that these plans involve large, cross-departmental efforts, but that this is being done together in the interest of being holistic about the vision. He then shared information about mobility and connectivity, which has identifying other elements, such as safety and public transit, including updates to North Avenue. Dillard continued by touching on placemaking and open space, saying that given the wealth of parkland one can question how those, and other types of land, may be enhanced to meet the needs and wants of the community. The presentation continued. He shared a map of “focus areas” which are walkable and accessible residential and commercial centers throughout the neighborhood that could be redeveloped. The ones Dillard touched on and shared visions for were the North Ave Church, the Ethan Allen Plaza, Public Lands (specifically noted that there is no vision to have the City sell any land, but instead lease it and that this is seen as an opportunity to not only get more housing but also to help fund new programming in park spaces, address maintenance challenges and improve ecological performance), Starr Farm Park and Ethan Allen Parkway. Dillard shared that there is an imbalance of parks throughout the City, so the next step in addressing that will be an assets study of all City-owned land. He then continued going through the details of the Starr Farm Park and Ethan Allen Parkway plans. Lantieri then opened it up to the Commissioners for questions. Boehm asked what a viable timeline for this plan to come to fruition would be? Dillard answered 20 – 25 years, but some property acquisition depends on when a property owner is ready to sell. He continued that most of this will be phased in over time, with some movement along North Avenue potentially happening sooner. He shared that construction costs are so high right now that there most likely will not be a critical mass of new development for a while. Lantieri asked if there is anywhere in the City that public land is leased to private developers? Dillard answered that that is the model for the Memorial block right now where that it is happening currently. Echo and the Sailing Center are also examples. Lantieri noted that he was one of the authors of the housing needs assessment that Dillard mentioned during his presentation and that he would encourage them to explore the whole range of the housing targets. Dillard wanted to highlight the public procurement model and that if the City can have more control around what gets built, specific housing needs can be addressed in a more intentional way than the private market will. Mobely noted that she hoped that UVM was a part of the housing conversation since students drive up the need for housing. Dillard is hoping for feedback in the future regarding the concepts and what the Commission is thinking and feeling about it all. Lantieri confirmed that they would be open to that. Dillard reminded everyone that all of the information is online and can be found by googling “Plant BTV North End”. 4. Public Forum 4.1 Verbal Comments Lantieri opened the public forum at 6:43pm. Aaron Keech introduced himself and started by sharing his background. He touched on 2 things that were on his mind when he exited his role on the Commission in June – empowering the public and empowering the Commission. He felt that it was important to remind the Commissioners that they are not an extension of the Department, but rather two separate entities working together. He continued by sharing that he feels the most powerful tool that they have is the Legacy Fund, which receives a lot of money, and the idea of acquisition, which did not happen in the 3 years that he served on the Commission. He really emphasized that the Commission should watch how much money is coming in and where it is going. He continued that he has more information to add to the off-leash dog discussion and reminded everyone that it began because there were issues with off-leash dogs. Keech feels that the committee was made up of dog advocates who told everyone to lock up their cats. He continued that there were no controls on the survey and has shown that it is bad for the lake, bad for the forest and wildlife. He’s shared public letters not in support of off-leash dogs as well as information about people with disabilities and migrant community members who are concerned. He asked the group to please follow the science and the idea that the parks are for everyone, all of the time. And he wanted to remind everyone that they have already approved a south end fenced in area, which means that there would be north, central and south locations. He noted that the Conservation Commission was just brought into the loop on this, which he feels doesn’t make sense. He closed by saying that he hoped they would vote no. Lantieri closed the public forum at 6:50pm. 5. Deliberative Agenda 5.1 Dog Policy Update Lantieri began by summarizing the background for Davis, the newest Commissioner, to get caught up. He shared that the recent history is that there have been a lot of open questions about dogs in the community and hearing that this was swirling around City Council created a task force that met regularly. He continued that this group met regularly and ended up conducting a survey for feedback about off-leash dogs from the community. The final report was completed in 2023, with key recommendations that were essentially, action items that could come out of the process. He continued that the Commission was brought into the conversation about the off-leash dog policy in 2024, and has been working through it as a body since. Lantieri continued that the way the conversation has been framed in terms of two functional pieces that would come out of it: the changes that go into Appendix D and then those changes formalize the creation of an off-leash dog policy. He shared that the difference between these is that when something is in the charter, it is harder to change and needs to go through City Council, but policy changes can be done through the Parks Commission. He closed by sharing that up to this point they have worked on a draft of Appendix D, which is what they would be proposing for the charter and also had made considerations about the policy, but that ultimately they decided to take a step back to see if this is something that they want to pursue at all. He feels it is something they can figure out, but will not be voting at this meeting. Davis asked if the law is currently that dogs need to be leashed in Burlington. Lantieri answered yes, dogs must be on leash unless the Parks Commission approves areas for unleashed dogs, which up to this point is only fenced in areas. He continued that the draft they were reviewing came from the recommendations of that dog task force. Boehm shared that eventually what they would vote on as a body are the changes and additions to Appendix D, as well as the off-leash dog policy (which goes hand in hand), after they get them to a place that they feel ready to do so. After that, the Appendix D changes would go to City Council. Mobely said that there is an assumption that if the group votes for one that the other will also be voted for in the same way. Lantieri asked if anyone has any specific spot they wanted to start. Boehm noted that the changes they made last time were fairly minimal and mostly wordsmithing things like “shall” being changed to “may” among others and that once the Commissioners felt like it was in a place everyone felt comfortable with that it could go to the City attorneys for final review. Sarah asked if everyone received Etter’s e-mail. She summarized that he is not in support of an off-leash dog policy. Lantieri continued that Etter shared that he would vote no on any off-leash, unfenced areas for any amount of time even if it was an experiment, noting that he had concerns about liability and enforcement – ideal rules versus what would actually happen on the ground. Mobley shared about the Ranger’s visit to the Commission and that they shared that there is a lack of staffing to enforce this and that she walked away from that feeling that there was not an opportunity for sustained enforcement. She also touched on various public comment not in favor of off-leash dogs in parks. Boehm asked if the Commission would be tasked with coming up with times in the policy where dogs could be off-leash in parks. Lantieri pointed out some suggestions already listed but that yes, they ultimately would decide on times to pilot and potentially approve. Boehm continued that one of the things they heard from the Rangers is that it is much more effective to say “you can’t have your dogs off-leash here but you can have them over there” instead of just saying no, and that people are more likely to be respectful of that. Boehm continued by asking if there could be a policy that says that dogs are not allowed off- leash, but would that give space for conversations and reassessment in the future? Lantieri felt like that could be possible. And pointed out that the Rangers noted in their report this month that they are encountering fewer off-leash dogs in parks and noticing improvement with leash compliance. Roach confirmed that he hasn’t received any off-leash dog complaints in the past two months. Lantieri asked if anyone had any additional thoughts on this today. Boehm shared that she feels the group should try and do something on this soon. Mobley agreed. Lantieri suggested starting a fresh document for everyone to review and then aim to take action form there and that the group is on a good path to get this wrapped up. 5.2 Universal Design Policy Draft Lantieri continued by pivoting to the Universal Design Policy. He began by sharing that this is something that has percolated around a few different areas – really coming from the strong community push around the Oakledge for All playground. With that, the Parks Foundation has overseen this interest and recognizing that it is more expensive than other playground equipment that they would like to support 5 playgrounds in the future to bring them up to a universal design level. He continued that they have been working on this campaign for several years and that Sophie Sauve has been working behind the scenes with the City’s accessibility committee to start to draft a policy to see if they would be a viable recipient for additional review or oversight for these kinds of things. He continued that the understanding is that these principles of universal design are goals of the Planning team within parks already but it’s just not codified in writing anywhere yet. This is something that will require funds, but hopefully persist. He closed by sharing that this is the first time the Commission has seen it and that it will just be a discussion today. Mobley asked for elaboration on the accessibility committee that Sophie has been working with. Lantieri shared that it is the Burlington Advisory Committee on Accessibility (BACA) that already existed, but they have started a subcommittee specifically for playgrounds. Mobley shared that this was exciting but that she would have questions around best practice, which can change, so she was wondering what the review process for that would be. Lantieri agreed but shared that he feels universal design has been around for long enough that it’s malleable but has standards. Roach shared that policy is how staff go about their work and work plans. He continued that this policy would codify the way that the Department designs playgrounds and allow us to point to and include standards in RFPs and RFQs and say that this is how we want the design to be proposed to us. He said that a lot of elements of these playgrounds are costly and therefore could be cut, but this policy protects them. Adams-Kolitz shared that a lot of this policy came from the Department internally and community interest. He continued that all of the organizations involved have come together to support universal design and that building these playgrounds results in potentially less maintenance over time and potentially less liability and exposure simply because mulch does not need to be maintained under the structures, so while the initial investment is more but the maintenance cost over time will most likely be less. Boehm asked what the drawbacks to codifying the policy would be. Adams-Kolitz responded that he did not feel like there were any and in a way this is already happening but because we don’t know who will be here in five or ten years, it is good to codify things for the future. Roach shared that there are a lot of perspectives where universal design makes sense. Everything will cost more over time and maintaining 15 playgrounds over time is a lot of staff time and maintenance so having potentially less things that are higher quality is better. He finished by saying that all of that aside, this is the right thing to do for inclusivity and accessibility. Adams-Kolitz shared that while this does all feel and look positive here and now, that there is a part of the community who is not in favor of universal playgrounds for various reasons, so they are working to create spaces with some standard equipment that is still accessible and meets ADA standards. Lantieri shared that this feels like something positive to look forward to that will have tangible impacts in making it easier for City staff to lean on contractors that are actually installing this equipment to say that we have a policy and it is our responsibility to follow this. He asked the Commissioners to take the next month to read through the draft and think about it for the next meeting. Roach encouraged the Commissioners to reach out to Sophie or John if anyone has any questions while reviewing it. 6. Standing Items 6.1 Parks Foundation (verbal) Lantieri shared that he attended their last meeting and that the focus was on continuing the campaign for universal playgrounds and that they want to do a public launch soon. 7. Director’s Report 7.1 Monthly Parks Commission Update (verbal) Lantieri began by sharing his sympathy for BPRW staff and all that they have been going through since the RIFs. Mobley was struck by thinking about the impact of this all happening during the busy summer months and is hopeful that the staff feels like the Commission is paying attention to what is happening. Lantieri asked if there is anything the Commission can do to support the work. Roach shared that the focus and dedication right now is to the staff that are still here and that there are numerous staff coming to him asking how they can help. He continued that there was no preparation for this moment which has put the Department in a position to create a plan as they go. He applauded staff for stepping in to fill the gaps but noted that this is bringing to light that maybe the Department can’t continue doing everything that they have been and that they are not in a position to apply resources that they do not have. This means restructuring and all of the pieces that come along with that will need to take place. He shared that this has all been overwhelming for everyone and that morale is low. Roach continued that ultimately showing support for the staff would be great coming from the Commission. Adams-Kolitz echoed that having Commissioners engage with staff to break the barrier and strengthen their voice would be welcomed. Davis asked if they were anticipating more staff leaving because of this. Roach replied that the Department is very vulnerable right now but thinks that the new Director will be important in terms of how things move forward. He said that the type of leader that is needed right now is someone who can put forth a plan, get support for the plan and execute the plan. He feels that we need to refocus in on the idea of commitment to quality over commitment to quantity because what the Department does is so broad. He continued that the staff are extremely committed to the work and the City at large, which plays a huge role in the Department’s success. 7.2 Director Hiring Process Update (verbal) Roach shared that there were 31 applicants and after an initial review by the three interim directors, they forwarded their top 6 applicants to the Mayor’s office. He said that he will be on the hiring panel to represent BPRW along with people from other City Departments and bodies identified by the Mayor’s office. He continued that the interim directors are currently generating feedback from staff so that he can go into the panel discussions prepared with the staff’s perspective. He welcomed the Commissioner who would also be sitting on the panel to join him in those efforts. Lantieri continued that he and the interim directors reached out to the Mayor’s office about the process recently and they said that they wanted to invite someone from the Commission to be present on the panel as well. He then asked if anyone was interested and available to sit on that panel. The group consensus was that Lantieri would be a great representative. He graciously accepted. 8. Commissioner’s Items & Volunteer Hours Lantieri began by introducing himself to the newest Commissioner, Davis, and said that he had about 5 hours of volunteer time since the last meeting. The rest of the Commissioners introduced themselves. No one else shared any volunteer hours. 9. Adjournment 9.1 Motion to Adjourn Lantieri asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Boehm made a motion to adjourn, Davis seconded. All were in favor, none were opposed. The meeting adjourned at 8:45pm.

Agenda

Packet

Tuesday, August 12, 2025, 5:30 PM, Parks & Recreation Commission Front Conference Room, 645 Pine Street OR Remotely via Zoom Join Zoom Meeting https://zoom.us/j/94368073240 Meeting ID: 943 6807 3240 View meeting insights with Zoom AI Companion https://zoom.us/launch/edl?muid=6ed9ebd1-af80-46a6-baf0-b4454fc1c170 1. Agenda 1.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda 2. Consent Agenda Subject 2.1. June Commission Meeting Minutes (attachment) Meeting August 12, 2025 - Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, August 12, 2025, 5:30 PM, Parks & Recreation Commission Front Conference Room, 645 Pine Street OR Remotely via Zoom Category 2. Consent Agenda Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront Type Action (Consent) Minutes Recommended Action Subject 2.2. Request for Special Use Permit Waiver for Neighborhood Event at Pomeroy Park (attachment) Meeting August 12, 2025 - Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, August 12, 2025, 5:30 PM, Parks & Recreation Commission Front Conference Room, 645 Pine Street OR Remotely via Zoom Category 2. Consent Agenda Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront Type Action (Consent) Recommended Action Subject 2.3. Request for Special Use Permit Waiver for BCA/ Turning Point at City Hall Park (attachment) Meeting August 12, 2025 - Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, August 12, 2025, 5:30 PM, Parks & Recreation Commission Front Conference Room, 645 Pine Street OR Remotely via Zoom Page 1 of 182 Category 2. Consent Agenda Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront Type Action (Consent) Recommended Action Subject 2.4. Request for Special Use Permit Waiver for Greater Burlington Girls Soccer League at Calahan Park (attachment) Meeting August 12, 2025 - Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, August 12, 2025, 5:30 PM, Parks & Recreation Commission Front Conference Room, 645 Pine Street OR Remotely via Zoom Category 2. Consent Agenda Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront Type Action (Consent) Recommended Action Subject 2.5. Request for Special Use Permit Waiver for Community Health Center at North Beach Shelter (attachment) Meeting August 12, 2025 - Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, August 12, 2025, 5:30 PM, Parks & Recreation Commission Front Conference Room, 645 Pine Street OR Remotely via Zoom Category 2. Consent Agenda Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront Type Action (Consent) Recommended Action Subject 2.6. Request for Special Use Permit Waiver for Ward 5 NPA at Calahan Park (attachment) Meeting August 12, 2025 - Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, August 12, 2025, 5:30 PM, Parks & Recreation Commission Front Conference Room, 645 Pine Street OR Remotely via Zoom Category 2. Consent Agenda Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront Type Action (Consent) Recommended Action Subject 2.7. Request for Special Use Permit Waiver for Vermont Racial Justice Alliance at Roosevelt Park (attachment) Page 2 of 182 Meeting August 12, 2025 - Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, August 12, 2025, 5:30 PM, Parks & Recreation Commission Front Conference Room, 645 Pine Street OR Remotely via Zoom Category 2. Consent Agenda Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront Type Action (Consent) Recommended Action Subject 2.8. Request for Special Use Permit Waiver for BCA/ Flynn Center at City Hall Park (attachment) Meeting August 12, 2025 - Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, August 12, 2025, 5:30 PM, Parks & Recreation Commission Front Conference Room, 645 Pine Street OR Remotely via Zoom Category 2. Consent Agenda Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront Type Action (Consent) Recommended Action Subject 2.9. Request for Special Use Permit Waiver for Sarah Ramsey Strong Fund on the Burlington Greenway (attachment) Meeting August 12, 2025 - Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, August 12, 2025, 5:30 PM, Parks & Recreation Commission Front Conference Room, 645 Pine Street OR Remotely via Zoom Category 2. Consent Agenda Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront Type Action (Consent) Recommended Action 3. New North End Plan Subject 3.1. Review with Sarah Morgan and Charles Dillard (verbal) Meeting August 12, 2025 - Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, August 12, 2025, 5:30 PM, Parks & Recreation Commission Front Conference Room, 645 Pine Street OR Remotely via Zoom Category 3. New North End Plan Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront Type Recommended Action Page 3 of 182 4. Public Forum Subject 4.1. Verbal Comments Meeting August 12, 2025 - Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, August 12, 2025, 5:30 PM, Parks & Recreation Commission Front Conference Room, 645 Pine Street OR Remotely via Zoom Category 4. Public Forum Department Council and Board Type 5. Deliberative Agenda Subject 5.1. Dog Policy Update (attachments) Meeting August 12, 2025 - Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, August 12, 2025, 5:30 PM, Parks & Recreation Commission Front Conference Room, 645 Pine Street OR Remotely via Zoom Category 5. Deliberative Agenda Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront Type Recommended Action Subject 5.2. Universal Design Policy Draft (attachment) Meeting August 12, 2025 - Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, August 12, 2025, 5:30 PM, Parks & Recreation Commission Front Conference Room, 645 Pine Street OR Remotely via Zoom Category 5. Deliberative Agenda Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront Type Recommended Action 6. Standing Items Subject 6.1. Parks Foundation (verbal) Meeting August 12, 2025 - Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, August 12, 2025, 5:30 PM, Parks & Recreation Commission Front Conference Room, 645 Pine Street OR Remotely via Zoom Category 6. Standing Items Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront Type Recommended Action 7. Director's Report Page 4 of 182 Subject 7.1. Monthly Parks Commission Update (verbal) Meeting August 12, 2025 - Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, August 12, 2025, 5:30 PM, Parks & Recreation Commission Front Conference Room, 645 Pine Street OR Remotely via Zoom Category 7. Director's Report Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront Type Report Recommended Action Subject 7.2. Director Hiring Process Update (verbal) Meeting August 12, 2025 - Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, August 12, 2025, 5:30 PM, Parks & Recreation Commission Front Conference Room, 645 Pine Street OR Remotely via Zoom Category 7. Director's Report Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront Type Recommended Action 8. Commissioner's Items & Volunteer Hours 9. Adjournment Subject 9.1. Motion to adjourn Meeting August 12, 2025 - Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, August 12, 2025, 5:30 PM, Parks & Recreation Commission Front Conference Room, 645 Pine Street OR Remotely via Zoom Category 9. Adjournment Department Council and Board Type Recommended Action Page 5 of 182 Parks & Recreation Commission 645 Pine Street, Front Conference Room & Zoom Minutes June 10th, 2025 @ 5:30pm Commission Present: Lantieri, Boehm, Mobley, Keech, Etter, Johnson and Bergmann Not Present: Staff Present: Cindi Wight, Deryk Roach, Erin Moreau, Sophie Sauve, Dan Cahill, Meghan O’Daniel Other Present: Chapin Spencer, Zandy Wheeler, Sarah Camille Wilson & Chris Russo The meeting commenced at 5:32pm with Lantieri welcoming everyone. He asked everyone from the public who was in attendance to sign in. 1. Agenda 1.1 Lantieri asked if someone would make a motion to adopt the agenda for the meeting. Boehm made the motion and Bergmann seconded. Lantieri then asked everyone to take a vote and everyone responded aye. None were opposed, so the agenda was approved. 2. Consent Agenda 2.1 – 2.10 Lantieri continued that next was the consent agenda and asked if there were any motions regarding that. Mobley moved to approve. Etter had a question about requesting a change to one. Wight responded that the item would need to be pulled to discuss as a deliberative item and typically that is determined ahead of the meeting so that all parties can be informed. Etter thanked her and said he did not want to do that with any of these items. Lantieri continued looking for someone to second the motion. Boehm seconded. All were in favor, none were opposed, so the consent agenda was approved. 3. Public Forum 3.1 Lantieri opened the public forum at 5:35pm. There were no comments from the public. Sauve, a BPRW staff member, shared information about the Open Space Plan. She reminded everyone that the survey is open until June 27th and encouraged those who haven’t participated to do so and to share it with others. She continued by sharing their outreach efforts – attending NPA meetings, tabling at events and markets. She Page 6 of 182 explained that it’s on the City Planning’s page on the website or people could search “Burlington’s Open Space Plan”. Keech, a Commissioner, shared a letter from a community member about off-leash dog concerns from Colombia. It read “Dear Ms. Wight, I’m writing to comment on the recommendations for off-leash dogs in Burlington’s public spaces. When our daughter was young, we took her to Oakledge Park for a family picnic on the beach. While sitting there, an unleashed dog ran up, grabbed her food and ran away. The dog owner was unconcerned and became belligerent when we asked him to keep his dog on a leash. We are frequent users of North Beach, and have regularly witnessed off-leash dogs urinating and defecating on the beach and in the water, running over people's picnic blankets, running up to strangers and shaking their wet fur on them and begging strangers for food. We have lived in the Old North End for 24 years. Being in a diverse community, I've witnessed members of the New American population show fear, concern, and even terror when approached by dogs countless times. One highly exclusive user group should not take precedence over all other users, including families, people with leash dogs, new Americans, and anyone looking for time to relax and enjoy the outdoors without being harassed. The only people that don't mind an unleashed dog's behavior are the dog owners themselves. Thank you for considering my comments and adding them to the public record. Sincerely, Columbia.” Lantieri thanked Aaron for reading and Columbia for their comment. Seeing no other interest in public forum, he closed it at 5:40pm. 4. Deliberative Agenda 4.1 Ski Rack Commission change request Chapin Spencer, Director of Public Works, started by sharing that they noticed that last month the Commission had approved a concessionaire agreement with Ski Rack and noted that Zandy Wheeler from Ski Rack was also present. He shared that Zandy had made a request to possibly reduce the gross sales commission rate, from 10% to 5%. He continued by noting that DPW is currently managing a number of capital projects in the City at this time, including Great Streets Main Street and the Champlain Parkway, both of which arrive at a shared point – the Pine St. and Main St. intersection, where Zandy’s long-term retail operation is located. Spencer continued that DPW has reviewed the request and they have initiated a number of business mitigation strategies to help businesses to help them get through this period – everything from zero-interest loans to additional public parking to amplifying social media campaigns. He closed by sharing that they are in support of the request that Ski Rack has put forward to ask for a reduced concessionaire rate and he opened the floor for questions. Boehm thanked Ski Rack for coming back and asked about where the 10% originally came from. Wight answered that it was from matching percentages across the board. And continued by sharing that this would just be for 2025 with the assumption and hope that most of the work will be done by next year. Chapin confirmed that he expects this to be a 1 year request, not an ongoing one. Page 7 of 182 Zandy Wheeler chimed in that he had put forward an additional request to the Commission that it be a 12 month agreement starting now, instead of a 2025 calendar year request since it’s already June. Etter asked when bike rental typically start for the season. Wheeler answered that it depends on the year but typically from April through September. Lantieri confirmed that the request would be for through the end of June 2026. Mobley chimed in that yes it would be changing from a calendar year to 12 months in the motion. Lantieri asked if there were any actions that Commissioners would like to make. Bergmann made a motion to approve the 12 months from 10% to 5%. Etter seconded. All were in favor, none opposed, so the request was approved. 4.2 Conservation Legacy Fund request Dan Cahill, BPRW’s Land Steward, began by sharing that this is a Legacy Fund request that was brought to the Conservation Board last month. It is a request that builds on the project cost of us conserving the rivers and the marina, a project that was done in 2018, to conserve a really critical parcel right at the bike path bridge over the Winooski River. Nick Warner and the Winooski Valley Park District have put together a proposal to help protect this conservation area that the City has invested in partnership with other entities to preserve and conserve. One piece to note is that the language in the resolutions that guide the Conservation Legacy Fund give the advisory language that the funding available for project cost or acquisition should not exceed 40%, and this project is under that threshold. Nick Warner, the Executive Director of the Winooski Valley Park District, began by sharing that this project was triggered by the flooding and extreme erosion over the past two years. He continued that as a conserved area, the solution is not just bringing in truckloads of materials. He shared that the solution is really a mix of solutions where we can best mimic natural conditions but also recognize that we need to deal with the erosion. He felt that this needed to be an engineered solution and that it needed to be done in concert with the City, so they went out to bid on a consultant and they hired Watershed Consulting and they actually attended the Conservation Board meeting to answer any technical questions. He continued that they have not started work yet, so they have been hired on the condition that WVPD receives the funding to pay them. Their role would be to build a profile for what to do with that whole stretch and to work with the City because it is a complex little strip. He said they have looked at other funding sources, but felt this was their best bet to be able to get this project done in a timely fashion. He then offered to answer any questions Commissioners might have. Lantieri asked if any of the Commissioners had questions. Etter inquired about the pressing need to prevent the erosion – whether it was to ensure the integrity of the bridge or something else. Warner answered that it is a combination of water quality, sedimentation and habitat and a lot of other things going on. He shared that they estimate they have lost about 20,000 square feet of material into the river, and it is continuing. He continued that Page 8 of 182 another reason they are concerned is that the path of the river creates an eddy right in front of Derway and Mays, where especially high water causes a circular pattern that carves away the shoreline and there is a neighborhood nearby that has concerns if the river continues on this path. It’s really quite an epic loss of material and a significant issue. Etter asked if there has been a study done on if there is a place where it will reshape the shoreline so that the eddy goes away and a different shape of the shoreline will happen and result in less erosion? So it naturally resolves itself. He continued by wondering if we are committing ourselves to a continuing fight or if there is space, would the river just move itself in a way so that it would erode less. Warner responded that because it is a floodplain, the goal is to come up with a solution that would allow the area to flood and also have some resistance to erosion. He shared that they’re looking at the whole site because of this and it is complex which is why they need the engineers. Keech chimed in that he was looking at this in terms of what this Commission has voted for in the past and what kind of service this is going to provide. He continued that this eddy is exposing the back side of the foot bridge, which is City property, and as soon as it gets out of control it is the City’s problem too. He said that he was looking at the funds requested and that compared to approving a $7,000 request for benches at Calahan, this is just a little more money and you cannot even compare the payout of the two. He closed by sharing that he feels this is such a small request with such a huge payout. Lantieri said that it sounded like this was completely within the goals of the Conservation Legacy Fund and doesn’t exceed the 40% Dan mentioned. He then asked if there were any other questions or comments from the Commissioners. No one did so Lantieri asked if there was a motion from anyone. Boehm made a motion to approve. Bergmann seconded. All were in favor, none opposed so the motion was approved. 4.3 Appendix D Section 2 and 5 Wight shared screen so that everyone could follow along and introduced Erin Moreau, BPRW Harbor Master. Moreau began by explaining that Section 2 pertains to the marinas – both at Perkins Pier and the Boathouse. She continued that what they found when reviewing it was that it talked about boaters in general, but there are really two classifications of boaters, transient and seasonal, and sometimes there are different restriction or qualifications associated with each. She continued that we enter into more full agreements with our seasonal boaters, so they dove into the language in the ordinance for those a little bit more. She shared that one of the main things they wanted to clarify was that there is no subletting, which has been an issue. She continued that this means people cannot go online and sell their slip for a day and BPRW has more authority in regards to that. Moreau shared that a lot of what was in the ordinance in the past was more general in regards to parks, so we updated this to define who staff is. Vetter asked about a switch from 8pm to 7pm for transient vessels presumed to be staying overnight. Page 9 of 182 Moreau confirmed and shared that it is actually more like 5pm, which is what designates evening from day, and so what this means is that you can stay out here on the hook until 7pm free of charge, but we will start charging you overnight at 7pm. We did this because we want it to be daylight throughout the entire season when this happens, and 8pm puts us into twilight later on in the season. Moreau continued that a lot of the new language and changes are from the contract that all seasonal boaters sign, but this is taking it to the next level. Etter asked about the section referencing that the owner shall give the City advanced notice of commencement and duration of such vacancies saying that it doesn’t say how long the vacancy has to be, and suggest that that is added. Moreau answered in agreement, saying that she would update it to say “over 48 hours”. Etter asked if it was common practice for boaters to let Marina staff know when they are leaving the harbor. Moreau answered that this is pretty typical, but mostly from larger boats that are overnighting. She continued that Perkins Pier is all small crafts, most of which do not have an enclosed cabin, so this mostly happens with the Boathouse and is a fairly normal marina habit for safety reasons. She shared that her staff will check in with a boat if they haven’t notified them that they are overnighting somewhere else to make sure that they are okay. She continued that most boaters let them know when they will just be gone for a bit, gone for a week or anywhere in between. Keech asked if this was a verbal practice or is there a way to track and capture this. Moreau responded that they use a software called Dockwa. Boaters can e-mail or come to the front counter and staff will input information about a slip in here, like how long the boaters will be away for, which helps security and evening staff know which spots will be empty, and if a boat is missing that should not be, they are reaching out to check in. Etter asked about the changes to the insurance requirement and what kind of things that would cover. Moreau responded that they are not putting the amount in the Ordinance because it fluctuates so much but that the agreement will reflect the current amount annually. She continued that this would cover things like damage to the dock with their vessel, damaging power pedestals, if their boat sinks in the harbor, leaks and breaches and the list goes on. Mobley asked for clarification about the clause regarding boater behavior. Moreau responded that this is all currently in the boater agreement, but they wanted to add it in here to really reinforce it and take it to the next level. Wight continued on with Section 5, Park Closings. She shared that there were some updates to park names and some parks added. Moreau shared an update about parking – changing the language from “permits” to “fees” because of the installation of kiosks across the City. Moreau continued that one of the biggest changes was to the North Beach section – clarifying the season and that motor vehicles are excluded from the beach parking lot “from dusk to dawn” – so no overnight parking there, which she is hoping will help with some problematic activity that happens at night sometimes. Page 10 of 182 Wight pointed out the addition about the gate being closed overnight and in the off season. She continued that some people have shared frustrations about this but the reality is that it is remote and we do not have staff down there in the off-season, and no plowing in the winter and lots of mud in the spring. Lantieri asked if someone would like to move to approve the recommended changes to Appendix D, Sections 2 and 5 with the amendments as outlined in this meeting. Mobley made a motion to approve, Keech seconded. All were in favor, none were opposed. 4.4 Appendix D Section 7 Lantieri began by sharing that he, Boehm and Wight created this memo by taking a step back, thinking about the timeline and what were actually things that needed to be done and looking at each of the components involved. Wight added on that this was intended to help folks understand the separation of Appendix D versus the policy. She continued that there are a lot of things in the policy that will be more nimble to change as compared to what is in Appendix D since there is more time and effort to change ordinances and so having details in the policy is better. Boehm clarified that right now there is not a policy currently, but that today the group is reviewing the Appendix D section 7 language that will help to create the policy. She continued that what they are suggesting the group talk about today are – getting an answer to any questions about liability from the City attorney, and just like we have been doing, look at the draft changes and vote on that. Lantieri agreed and added that the next step will be outlining and filling out the policy from there in the coming months. Boehm chimed in that the policy would then be controlled by the Parks Commission, not City Council, like the ordinance. Keech wanted to make sure the group talked about this before any editing happened and also brought up that the Commission has been up against a similar topic in the past – smoking areas, about whether they were going to be happening or not. He continued by sharing a quote that he found written by the Parks Department in opposition to City Council imposing non-smoking areas in their parks. He said that this department did not want that to occur, but City Council imposed it, so they had a statement about their opposition it and he said it runs perfectly parallel to what the Commission is dealing with right now. He asked for permission to read the quote so that it was on the record. Lantieri allowed him to read it. Keech read “The rights of a non-smoker must always come before the privileges of a smoker in a community setting. That has been the national standard for close to 40 years now, ever since the government won its lawsuit against the tobacco companies. How can Burlington be any different? In all of the conversations we had with Commissioners from cities and other towns, no one mentioned protecting the rights of a smoker in a park. Instead, they focused on the purpose of a public park. We're all citizens of all ages would be able to enjoy clean air with beautiful views surrounded by natural landscape and a wholesome recreational activities.” He continued by saying that this runs perfectly parallel to this dog argument – whose rights are we talking about, whose park is it. He finished by sharing that he just wanted to put that out there and Page 11 of 182 that this is a statement from this Department and now, in terms of this topic, the viewpoint is essentially flipped. He closed by saying that this does not make any sense to him. Lantieri thanked him for sharing and asked if anyone else had any other questions or thoughts before they started. Etter asked about the e-mail they received from Amy Mayer. Wight answered that she is our risk person at the City attorney’s office. Keech asked what their ultimate take on this was and shared that he read it as “don’t do it”. Wight responded that Amy’s comment was that she feels that formalizing it in places where people are already informally doing it actually lowers risk because there are rules and signage, so the direction is not “don’t do it” at this time. She continued that she does not feel that it’s the Commission’s responsibility to worry about the liability piece of this. Keech responded that the first bullet point is that all visitors use the park at their own risk, which he thinks is a pretty damning first statement. He continued that another thing he thinks needs to be pointed out is that parks should be physically separate from the general public. It shouldn’t be located around playgrounds, which are being proposed. Sports fields, which are being proposed. Public pathways, which are being proposed. Or schools, not proposed. Or, he said he would like to include beaches, which are being proposed. He shared that the direction of this document defies the idea of having unfenced off-leash areas. Boehm shared that she felt it would be helpful for everyone to look at this section of Appendix D is that we can come back to these pieces, but it can us orient what we are really talking about in this one place. She asked if everyone was okay with starting that process. There was general agreement. Lantieri shared that the basis of this originally came from the Task Force recommendations and then we modified and edited as we saw fit. Wight said that the first section, A, just defines that there has to be an off-leash dog policy as approved by the Parks Commission and that any modifications need to be approved by the Parks Commission. She continued that if there are off-leash areas, that they are stated in the policy, with the exception of fenced dog parks, which shall be established by ordinance because they are more permanent. Keech shared that he looked at this and feels that until they make a decision about fenced areas and unfenced areas that it is difficult to look at this. He continued by saying that if we are going to say no to unfenced areas, that should basically say the OLDP shall govern actions within dog parks. Except that permanent fenced dog parks shall be established by ordinance. He continued by asking what these opportunities that they are talking about are. And said that until we define what the intentions are as a group, how are we going to edit this? Boehm responded that that was a fair question and said that the other way to do it would be to develop the policy first, but that there would still need to be a framework or context that they were fitting into. She continued that if the group looks at this and Page 12 of 182 agrees that this is what we think we would fit it into, then they would work on the policy which would be the same process – going through it like this. Wight added that Appendix D Section 7 won’t go to City Council until the policy is also done. Etter suggested modifying the wording of A to make it a bit more flexible, less like we are compelling ourselves to have off-leash dog opportunities that are not permanent fenced dog parks. He thought changing the wording to read something like “there might not be any, but if there are they will be in the OLDP”. Wight mentioned the edit from “guardian” to “owner”. Etter suggested changing the word “shall” to “may” in section B because it is more flexible rather than compelling the Commission to make policy that they haven’t decided they are going to make. He continued that the first sentence in section B is enough and the second two sentences could be removed entirely. Mobley stated that she felt that the third sentence should be kept in. Etter agreed. There was a discussion on the difference between “shall” and “may” and which was more appropriate for this section. Ultimately the group decided “may” gives some flexibility. Etter jumped ahead to number two but noted that it was relevant to B. He wanted to make it clear that dogs must be leashed in all parks at all times except for the locations under number one and number two. Keech shared that he had to strike two completely because it is essentially off-leash non-fenced, and looked for confirmation. Etter responded that if there are off-leash dog areas they will be listed in the OLDP. Keech said that if we just write off-leash areas, because if you go into a fenced area you can take your dog off-leash. Wight clarified that not any fenced in area, like tennis courts. Boehm confirmed that the law is that dogs need to be on-leash at all times in the City, so that is the default and does not need to be stated in Appendix D. Wight said that it is stated that this group is the only one that has the authority to establish areas where dogs can be off-leash. Etter shared that he wanted to make sure it was very clear that these are the only areas where dogs are allowed to be off-leash. Lantieri suggested that could go in either this section or A. Boehm commented that the first sentence in B is essentially a very long way of saying what Etter was getting at. Wight said this could be used as a space to capture intent and people could wordsmith via e-mail later. The group then wordsmithed a few spots together while Wight noted the changes in the document. Bergmann noted a change in the titles of the areas with fenced off-leash areas. Keech asked about funding for the Oakledge dog park and if that was all that was left to get it built, confirming that it had been approved already. Wight answered that it is that coupled with staff capacity. Page 13 of 182 Lantieri confirmed that this process, however, is what establishes it and allows it be there. Etter asked why bullet 3 was struck and what is in Article 2, Section 517 Wight answered that it was about the funds to implement it should be made available from the fees and the CAO does not want funds to dictate where the money goes. She continued that that is noting a change the Task Force wanted to make but did not make it through the Ordinance Committee. Wight continued with letter C saying that the Department would definitely want to be held to number one. Etter asked if the Department had any concerns with number two, the targeted campaigns. Wight answered that she would be okay if that was taken off. Boehm shared that for context, one of the things the smaller group talked about and put in the timeline was that as the Commission begins having conversations with Cindid’s successor that they may have some insights for what is feasible from their perspective. Johnson noted that along with the annual targeted campaign to educate the community, it would be good to also have a space for feedback on these potential off- leash areas annually. There was general agreement that this would be a good addition to the policy. Keech specifically noted that cats remaining indoors made the ordinance, so it felt hypocritical to not include this in the ordinance as well as the policy. Mobley offered that a line could be included here along the lines of “if created, the Parks Commission will evaluate on a regular basis”. The group agreed. Keech asked about the word “opportunities” in letter C number one, and what that meant if we were not going to ultimately provide off-leash, non-fenced areas. Wight suggested changing that word to “areas”. Keech felt that sufficed. Keech continued that he felt 4 needed a lot of work. He continued that the word “supervised” can mean different things to different parents in different settings, like when unleashed dogs are around. He feels that if there are going to be unfenced off- leash dog areas, things like no glass containers and no food is not realistic. He continued through the list asking how this would work if there were unfenced areas. He concluded by saying that depending on how the Commission defines what an area is, whether that is fenced or unfenced, it is a big deal. Others read number 4 as being only in fenced off-leash dog areas. Boehm shared that it is good to take into account what is being said, but to also fit the ordinance and the policy together with this in mind. She continued that she feels the spirit of this is not just limited to the fenced areas and number 4. Etter said that he understood what Keech was saying and used the under 12 years old example. Lantieri said that if there is an established off-leash, unfenced area, it would make sense to not allow unsupervised children in that area. Page 14 of 182 Keech shared a personal story about his daughter being bitten by an off-leash dog in a leashed area with her mother right next to her, which is why he made the point that supervision within these areas would be completely different with unleashed dogs around. Etter suggested that number 4 would be worth re-visiting depending on how things go during the unfenced discussion. Wight noted that in the document. Etter shared that he was not a huge fan of the idea of restorative justice processes because with the law there are set boundaries but restorative practices feelings tend to be involved. He continued that he would like to see section E, number 3 go away. Keech agreed. He noted that he has gone through a restorative justice program and it was great, but it was over a stolen bike, compared to potentially things like medical bills, human health issues, being involved here if someone is hurt. Mobley chimed in that a lot of what the group is talking about in regards to this is conflict between people who have different values around dogs in their space. She continued that because of this having a restorative justice piece makes sense because so much of this is going to come down to the way people engage and have conversations with one another. She shared that given how polarized some of this conversation feels, she believes that there does need to be something built in that gives people the opportunity to build bridges in that process. Etter stated that this then begs the questions of under what circumstances, which may be for the City attorney to decide. Keech referenced the Rangers visiting and sharing their difficulties with enforcement and how if the unfenced piece was going to occur that those difficulties would remain. He shared that he was curious about section E, number 1 and asked if anyone had ever been removed because of this? Wight noted that there is a volunteer group at the Starr Farm Dog Park who might have some insight. Lantieri asked if the Rangers have ever ejected someone from a park for any sort of violation. Wight responded that yes people have been trespassed people from parks. Lantieri suggested that some of the difficulties may be stemming from the fact that the policy does not exist yet, so there is nothing to point to. Etter asked if Park Rangers can issue fines for dogs off-leash as per the Ordinance that already exists, or just police. Wight responded that Park Rangers have been added to that section so yes they do have the authority to ticket for off-leash dogs in City parks. Boehm noted that part of it may be a capacity issue for the rangers. Lantieri circled back to the restorative justice piece of the conversation. Mobely said that she was fine with having the wording say “may include a restorative justice process” since it leaves it open but not required. The group agreed. Page 15 of 182 Etter asked for clarification about whether or not anything in this document would prohibit people who were interested in accelerating the building of fenced areas from donating. Wight said no. As the group wrapped up the discussion, Boehm reminded everyone that the original goal was to vote on this section and asked if people were feeling like maybe that was not the right approach right now because they still needed to fit the ordinance and the policy together more. There was general agreement. Lantieri asked someone to make a motion to table the vote on Appendix D section 7 until further notice, at least until the August meeting. Etter made the motion to table, Keech seconded. All were in favor, none opposed. Lantieri asked commissioners to take a look at all of the documents between now and the August meeting in the hopes that the group can come back and be able to start working towards some consensus or at least a compromise. 4.5 Review Commission Report Lantieri opened by sharing that Cindi worked this up for the Commission and that it is basically a review of all of the action items that they had throughout the year. He continued by letting everyone know additions can be made before the final draft is complete or the group can approve it at this meeting and then all sign it. Keech shared that he thought it was a great encapsulation of everything that has been happening. But, he continued, that he did have one plea to everyone that for the future, that Pennies for Parks be used for more obscure and unique things that are not necessarily incorporated with existing plans. Wight responded that one recommendation she could make to the Commission is that you as Commissioners have access to your own parts of the community so you can help talk up Pennies for Parks to spread the word about the opportunity. Lantieri continued that it is a great way for projects to come through via a community- driven accelerators for plans that maybe do not have the funds allocated for them. Mobely asked for clarification that it is not the role of Commissioners to solicit more diverse requests, but just to spread the word that it exists. Keech answered that in the past the Department goes through and then presents the Commission with some and then we approve them. Wight chimed in that in the past few years, every request that has been made has been funded and she encouraged Commissioners to remind people that it is an opportunity. Lantieri shared that it is not a responsibility but more of an opportunity for an engagement. Mobely asked for clarification that if she encourages someone to apply and then she is voting on it, if that would be a conflict of interest. The group consensus was that it would only be a conflict of interest if it was something that directly benefitted a Commissioner personally, which would be rare if it ever even happened. Boehm said that if there were ever concern, a Commissioner could recuse themselves from a vote. Page 16 of 182 The Commissioners thanked Cindi for putting this report together. Mobley noted that her name is “Katie” not “Kate”. No other changes were requested, so Cindi asked the Commissioners to sign it electronically when it comes through. 5. Standing Items 5.1 Parks Foundation Lantieri shared that there was a meeting of the Parks Foundation last week and that they are, from a campaign perspective, in the same place where they are about to launch a campaign to the public. He continued that they have spent a lot of time working on the back end of things, administratively, and they just got a new board as well. Wight shared that the new chair is Kelly, who is also the Executive Director of Rock Point. Lantieri continued that they are at a point where they are starting to move their goals forward, which is exciting. 6. Director’s Report 6.1 Monthly Parks Commission Update Wight shared a few things out from the report including that there is a new concessionaire at Oakledge, which is exciting. She continued by noting the new lighted harbor buoys, which have been getting really positive feedback – even from the Coastguard. She also mentioned the Sustainability Academy’s Trout Parade, which was very cute. She continued that Pomeroy Park is out to big, which will be the kickoff for the Parks Foundation public campaign. She ended by sharing that the Zero North Ave grant will be taken on by City staff, which she is relieved about. Lantier thanked Wight for her report and for all of the ones that have come before this one. The rest of the group echoed that sentiment. Wight shared her gratefulness for working with everyone in the Commission over the years. 7. Commissioner’s Items & Volunteer Hours Lantieri started by thanking Wight for her service, especially for her willingness to always be on the front line with staff. He specifically noted when she was driving the bus to bring people to and from the cold weather shelter. Lantieri continued by giving VJ Comai, the City Arborist, a shout out about his willingness to dive in and get things done – like the planters on Champlain Street. Wight shared that Comai was the one to switch a lot of annual plantings to perennials, which saved the City money and is also more ecologically and climate friendly. Keech went next and began by bringing up the e-mail everyone received about the bike park at Leddy and mentioned that maybe it should be a discussion item at a future meeting. He continued by bringing up the sailing center and their proposal to expand into the Urban Reserve because it is going to involve fill which is a violation of the Urban Reserve plan and the Commission should have a voice in what is going on there. He closed by sharing that he received an e-mail from someone about amplified sound in Calahan Park, who was looking for verification that the request was approved. Page 17 of 182 Wight told Keech to forward the e-mail to her. Bergmann said that he did not have any hours to report and thanked Wight for her professionalism and reasonableness and willingness to do what is best for the citizens of Burlington and that she would be hard to replace. Johnson shared that they attended a garden work day at the Calahan community garden. They echoed the thankfulness for all of Wight’s work with the Commission and the City and that she will be missed. Mobley did not have any hours to report, and shared that she was sad her and Wight’s time together was short, but that it is great to think about the lasting legacy that she will have on Burlington and the Department. Etter did not have any hours to report, but also thanked Wight for her service and said that the enthusiasm of people who come to the meetings and join the Commission is a testimony to her leadership. Boehm shared that she had 1 hour of volunteering to report for planning with Lantieri and Wight and said that it has been a joy getting to know Wight and that every staff member who comes in is so incredibly competent and knowledgeable and hardworking and thoughtful and she feels that from Wight and her leadership. 8. Adjournment 8.1 Motion to adjourn Lantieri asked someone to make a motion to adjourn. Etter made a motion, Bergmann seconded. All were in favor, none opposed. Page 18 of 182 MEMO Date: August 12th, 2025 To: BPRW Commission From: Meghan O’Daniel, Community Garden & Parks Outreach Coordinator RE: Pomeroy Park Neighborhood Event Special Use Permit for September 12th, 2025 Request for a Special Use Permit at Pomeroy Park to hold a neighborhood event and for a waiver to allow alcohol and amplified sound. Erin Malone, the owner of Momo’s Market, has a goal of providing a space to celebrate the neighborhood, create memories with neighbors, enjoy the Fall and connecting members of the community together for the 5th year in a row. They are expecting around 75 - 100 attendees. Cha Cha Garna will be providing food and Zero Gravity will be selling beer. They will be responsible for fencing, ID checking and pouring and will provide the necessary documentation to do so. They have arranged for members of the neighborhood to be “security” for the event and they will be responsible for site clean-up. They have the necessary Certificate of Insurance. The gathering and amplified sound will take place between 5pm and 7pm, and will consist of live music by local band Barbacoa. Contact for the event is Erin Malone. It is on a day with no conflicting events. Staff Recommendations: Allow for Special Use Permit Page 19 of 182 MEMO Date: May 13, 2025 To: BPRW Commission From: Elizabeth Indorato, BCA Festival & Event Coordinator RE: Special Use Permit for August 23, 2025 Request for a Special Use Permit at City Hall Park to hold a public concert from 3pm to 10pm on August 23rd, 2025 and for a waiver to allow amplified sound. This event will be informative of, celebratory for, and stigma busting to Recovery and Substance Use Disorder. The city is partnering with the event to reduce the site rental fee. This event has been held in the park annually for the last three years, working with BCA. This event is expected to have around 200-300 participants over the course of the evening, and 10 volunteers/staff. The Turning Point Center will be working with BCA to ensure all vendors follow the required guidelines and go through the proper process including having a Certificate of Insurance. They and BCA staff will be responsible for site clean-up. The amplified sound will take place between 4pm and 9pm and will be a series of speakers, a DJ, and a band. BCA staff will be managing all production elements, including sound and lighting. The Turning Point Center has already booked City Hall Park. Contact for the event is Cameron Lauf. It is on a day with no conflicting events. Staff Recommendations: Allow for Special Use Permit including a waiver for amplified sound. Page 20 of 182 MEMO Date: February 13th, 2024 To: BPRW Commission From: Meghan O’Daniel, Community Garden & Parks Outreach Coordinator RE: GBGSL Special Use Permit for October 11th, 2025 Request for a Special Use Permit at Calahan Park for a waiver to allow amplified sound. Greater Burlington Girls Soccer League (GBGSL) will be holding their annual end-of-season Jamboree at Calahan Park on Saturday, June 8th. GBGSL has been using the Calahan Park soccer fields for their Spring and Summer seasons since 1997. At some point during the Jamboree, all of the players and their coaches plan to get on the field and dance to current pop songs and the Macarena together, usually resulting in a very long conga line. The amplified sound will take place between 8am and 1pm, and will consist of music from a playlist and announcements. They will be informing the surrounding neighborhood via Front Porch Forum ahead of the event. Contact for the Jamboree is Kristine Johnson. It is on a day with no conflicting events. Staff Recommendations: Allow for Special Use Permit including a waiver for amplified sound. Page 21 of 182 MEMO Date: August 4, 2025 To: BPRW Commission From: Meghan O’Daniel, Community Garden and Parks Outreach Coordinator RE: Julie Kaplan Special Use Permit for September 11, 2025 Request for waiver at North Beach Shelter to allow amplified sound for Community Health Center of Burlington’s staff picnic on Thursday, September 11, reservation hours are 9:00am – 9:00pm. The amplified sound from a microphone and low key music will take place from 2pm – 5pm. They will have 200 attendees. The request is on a day with no conflicting events. Staff Recommendations: Allow waiver for amplified sound. Page 22 of 182 MEMO Date: August 4th, 2025 To: BPRW Commission From: Meghan O’Daniel, Community Garden & Parks Outreach Coordinator RE: Ward 5 NPA Special Use Permit for August 17th, 2025 Request for a Special Use Permit at Calahan Park for a waiver to allow amplified sound. The Ward 5 NPA is planning to host a community event at Calahan Park consisting of music, food, community conversation and education around housing in Burlington and information about the NPA. The event and amplified sound will take place between 2pm and 5pm, and will consist of music from various musicians and announcements. They are expecting 50 – 75 people to attend. Contact for the event is Catherine Foley. It is on a day with no conflicting events. Staff Recommendations: Allow for Special Use Permit including a waiver for amplified sound. Page 23 of 182 MEMO Date: August 4th, 2025 To: BPRW Commission From: Meghan O’Daniel, Community Garden & Parks Outreach Coordinator RE: The Vermont Racial Justice Alliance Special Use Permit for August 23rd, 2025 Request for a Special Use Permit at Roosevelt Park to hold a First African Landing Day event with amplified sound. The Vermont Racial Justice Alliance will be hosting a First African Landing Day event on Saturday, August 23rd from 12pm to 5pm at Roosevelt Park. There will be musical and spoken word performance, African drumming and dancing, food and games. This event is free and open to the public and they are expecting roughly 200 people to attend. From the organizer, Mark Hughes: “The Vermont Racial Justice Alliance established First African Landing Day on August 24, 2019 by inspiration of the 400 Year African American History Commission and the 1619 Project. Vermont First African Landing Day was established to recognize and highlight the resilience and contributions of African-Americans since 1619; to acknowledge the impact that slavery and laws that enforced racial discrimination have on the United States and to educate the public about the arrival of Africans in the United States. The Governor has proclaimed on August 24, 2019 that the 4th Saturday of August “shall be henceforth recognized and commemorated as First African Landing Day in Vermont”. This year’s theme “STAND” is inspired by the Adinkra symbol Wawa Aba. Wawa Aba means “seed of the wawa (tree).” It is a symbol of hardiness, toughness, and perseverance. This seed is reputed for its hardness. Thus, Wawa Aba is a symbol of hardness, strength, toughness, endurance and durability. This theme speaks to the remarkable strength that was required of our Black ancestors as they navigated slavery, Jim Crow and many other hardships. The persistence of slavery and its legacy tell us that we will always be fighting for the rights of some to protect democracy for all. As we see the very rights that many of them bled, sweated and died for are rolled back, we cannot let their sacrifice fade in vain. As the winds of mean spirited policy violence blow, we must remember that we were built for times like these. It is in our DNA. This is our moment. This is our time. This First African Landing Day we embrace the difficult challenges ahead and understand that there has never been a civil right given in the United States that didn’t require a fight. There are some major challenges and obstacles ahead but we are prepared to STAND and fight for justice and the soul of this nation. First African Landing Day will be filled with cultural performances, captivating storytelling, and other engaging activities that honor the African roots deeply embedded in the history of Vermont and this Nation. We’ll embark on a journey of unity and understanding, commemorating the contributions of African culture to the diverse tapestry of Vermont and this Nation.” Page 24 of 182 This is at a time with no conflicting events. Staff Recommendations: Allow for Special Use Permit including a waiver for amplified sound. Page 25 of 182 MEMO Date: August 5th, 2025 To: BPRW Commission From: Elizabeth Indorato, BCA Festival & Event Coordinator RE: Special Use Permit for August 22nd, 2025 Request for a Special Use Permit at City Hall Park to hold a public concert from 1:30pm to 3:30pm on August 22nd, 2025 and for a waiver to allow amplified sound. This event will be presenting a new work with Movement for Parkinson’s. This event is expected to have around 50-100 participants over the course of the evening, and 10 volunteers/staff. The Flynn Center for the Performing Arts will be working with BCA to ensure all vendors follow the required guidelines and go through the proper process including having a Certificate of Insurance. They and BCA staff will be responsible for site clean-up. The amplified sound will take place between 1:30pm and 3:30pm and will be a series of speakers, a DJ, and a band. BCA staff will be managing all production elements, including sound and lighting. The Turning Point Center has already booked City Hall Park. Contact for the event is Amy Harting. It is on a day with no conflicting events. Staff Recommendations: Allow for Special Use Permit including a waiver for amplified sound. Page 26 of 182 MEMO Date: August 12th, 2025 To: BPRW Commission From: Meghan O’Daniel, Community Garden Outreach Coordinator RE: Sarah Ramsey Strong 5K Special Use Permit for October 26th, 2025 Request to have a fundraising event use the Southern section of the Burlington Greenway. The Sarah Ramsey Strong Fund is requesting to use the Southern portion of the Burlington Greenway for the 10th year on Saturday, October 26th from 10am – 12pm. The event will begin and end at Switchback Brewing. The proceeds from this event will go directly to the Sarah Ramsey Strong Fund, which is a nonprofit that supports annual scholarships given to Champlain College students and other innovation and entrepreneurship-focused student programs. They are expecting about 100 participants. Staff contact for this event is Jim Ramsey. It is on a day with no conflicting events. Staff Recommendations: Allow for Special Use Permit Page 27 of 182 ‭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 28 of 182 ‭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 29 of 182 ‭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 30 of 182 ‭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 31 of 182 ‭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 32 of 182 ‭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 33 of 182 ‭○‬ ‭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 34 of 182 ‭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 35 of 182 ‭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 36 of 182 ‭●‬ ‭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 37 of 182 ‭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 38 of 182 ‭❖‬ ‭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 39 of 182 ‭●‬ ‭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 40 of 182 ‭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 41 of 182 ‭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 42 of 182 ‭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 43 of 182 ‭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 44 of 182 ‭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 45 of 182 ‭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 46 of 182 ‭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 47 of 182 ‭(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 48 of 182 ‭(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 49 of 182 ‭(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 50 of 182 ‭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 51 of 182 ‭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 52 of 182 ‭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 53 of 182 ‭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 54 of 182 ‭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 55 of 182 ‭(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 56 of 182 ‭(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 57 of 182 ‭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 58 of 182 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 59 of 182 ‭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 60 of 182 ‭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 61 of 182 ‭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 62 of 182 ‭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 63 of 182 ‭(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 64 of 182 ‭(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 65 of 182 ‭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 66 of 182 ‭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 67 of 182 ‭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 68 of 182 ‭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 $276,996.51 per fiscal year. Assuming 100% is unattainable, we‬ l‭ooked at how much could be raised if we made an effort to increase licensing numbers‬ ‭similar to area communities such as South Burlington.‬ ‭30‬ ‭2012 and 2022 population estimates for the City of‬‭Burlington, VT came from census.gov‬ ‭31‬ ‭https://www.avma.org/news/pet-ownership-rate-stabilizes-spending-increases‬ ‭32‬ ‭https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/burlingtoncityvermont/HSD410221#HSD410221‬ ‭42‬ Page 69 of 182 ‭Table 2. Comparison of FY2022 Actual Licensing Revenues in Burlington to Projected increased revenues‬ ‭from increasing licensing numbers, based on the estimated numbers of dogs and cats in Burlington‬‭.‬ ‭Projected revenues from‬ ‭Projected revenues‬ ‭FY 2022 Revenues‬ ‭Projected Revenue‬ ‭successfully licensing‬ ‭from licensing 35%‬ ‭from Dog Licenses‬ i‭ncrease‬ ‭100% dogs and cats‬ ‭dogs 15% cats‬ ‭(11.8% dogs and‬ ‭(“realistic”)‬ ‭(“realistic”)*‬ ‭0% cats)‬ ‭Dogs (7728)‬ ‭$ 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 70 of 182 ‭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 71 of 182 ‭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 72 of 182 ‭○‬ ‭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 73 of 182 ‭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 74 of 182 ‭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 75 of 182 ‭(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 76 of 182 ‭(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 77 of 182 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 78 of 182 ‭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 79 of 182 ‭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 80 of 182 ‭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 81 of 182 ‭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 82 of 182 ‭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 83 of 182 ‭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 84 of 182 ‭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 85 of 182 ‭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 86 of 182 ‭○‬ ‭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 87 of 182 ‭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 88 of 182 ‭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 89 of 182 ‭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 90 of 182 ‭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 91 of 182 ‭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 92 of 182 ‭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 93 of 182 ‭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 94 of 182 ‭●‬ ‭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 95 of 182 ‭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 96 of 182 ‭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 97 of 182 ‭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 98 of 182 MEMO To: Burlington Parks Commission From: Cindi Wight, Director, Parks, Recreation & Waterfront Date: April 8, 2024 Subject: Reset and Review of Responsibilities from the Dog Task Force Final Report Background: In 2021, the City Council established the Dog Task Force in response to increased community concerns around dogs in Burlington, including off-leash use, enforcement, licensing, and related issues. The Task Force worked through 2023 and issued its final report in December 2023. The report includes comprehensive findings and recommendations to update ordinances, improve licensing and enforcement, and better support coexistence between people, dogs, and the broader community. In early 2024, the City Council reviewed the final report and issued a formal referral: “To refer the recommendations of the 2021-2023 Dog Task Force Report to the following Committees, Commissions, and Departments for further review, study, and recommended action... … Recommendation regarding creation of additional off-leash areas to the Parks Commission.” The Commission previously considered forming a subcommittee to take on this work, but progress has been limited. As of March 2024, the Parks Commission Chair and Vice Chair have recommended the Commission bring the work back to the full body and commit to regular discussion during upcoming meetings. Commission Authority and Policy Framework: • Chapter 5 of the Burlington Code of Ordinances outlines the authority of the Parks Commission to manage and regulate off-leash areas. https://www.codepublishing.com/VT/Burlington/#!/Burlington05/Burlington0502.html#5-14 • Appendix D, Section 7, addresses off-leash areas. However, Section 7 reflects a pilot project from over twenty years ago that was never finalized or adopted and does not reflect current policy. The Dog Task Force Report makes recommendations for updating Appendix D. • The Off-Leash Dog Policy proposed in the Dog Task Force final report (Appendix F) includes a comprehensive and updated framework that would be adopted and overseen by the Parks Commission. Page 99 of 182 Relevant Task Force Recommendations for Commission Review: 1. Establish a formal Off-Leash Dog Policy with Parks Commission oversight. 2. Create a pilot program for designated unfenced off-leash areas in parks. 3. Update City ordinances to formalize current and new off-leash areas (fenced and unfenced). 4. Support education efforts through events and outreach, in coordination with BPRW. Proposed Next Steps: • Use the April 8, 2024 meeting as a reset: clarify the Commission's charge and begin building a work plan. • Dedicate time at each Parks Commission meeting over the next several months to review sections of the final report and proposed policy language. • Begin with a review of the proposed Off-Leash Dog Policy (Appendix F) and list of pilot areas at the May meeting Attachment: Dog Task Force Final Report Page 100 of 182 ‭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 101 of 182 ‭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 102 of 182 ‭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 103 of 182 ‭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 104 of 182 ‭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 105 of 182 ‭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 106 of 182 ‭○‬ ‭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 107 of 182 ‭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 108 of 182 ‭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 109 of 182 ‭●‬ ‭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 110 of 182 ‭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 111 of 182 ‭❖‬ ‭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 112 of 182 ‭●‬ ‭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 113 of 182 ‭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 114 of 182 ‭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 115 of 182 ‭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 116 of 182 ‭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 117 of 182 ‭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 118 of 182 ‭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 119 of 182 ‭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 120 of 182 ‭(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 121 of 182 ‭(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 122 of 182 ‭(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 123 of 182 ‭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 124 of 182 ‭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 125 of 182 ‭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 126 of 182 ‭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 127 of 182 ‭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 128 of 182 ‭(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 129 of 182 ‭(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 130 of 182 ‭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 131 of 182 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 132 of 182 ‭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 133 of 182 ‭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 134 of 182 ‭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 135 of 182 ‭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 136 of 182 ‭(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 137 of 182 ‭(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 138 of 182 ‭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 139 of 182 ‭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 140 of 182 ‭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 141 of 182 ‭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 $276,996.51 per fiscal year. Assuming 100% is unattainable, we‬ l‭ooked at how much could be raised if we made an effort to increase licensing numbers‬ ‭similar to area communities such as South Burlington.‬ ‭30‬ ‭2012 and 2022 population estimates for the City of‬‭Burlington, VT came from census.gov‬ ‭31‬ ‭https://www.avma.org/news/pet-ownership-rate-stabilizes-spending-increases‬ ‭32‬ ‭https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/burlingtoncityvermont/HSD410221#HSD410221‬ ‭42‬ Page 142 of 182 ‭Table 2. Comparison of FY2022 Actual Licensing Revenues in Burlington to Projected increased revenues‬ ‭from increasing licensing numbers, based on the estimated numbers of dogs and cats in Burlington‬‭.‬ ‭Projected revenues from‬ ‭Projected revenues‬ ‭FY 2022 Revenues‬ ‭Projected Revenue‬ ‭successfully licensing‬ ‭from licensing 35%‬ ‭from Dog Licenses‬ i‭ncrease‬ ‭100% dogs and cats‬ ‭dogs 15% cats‬ ‭(11.8% dogs and‬ ‭(“realistic”)‬ ‭(“realistic”)*‬ ‭0% cats)‬ ‭Dogs (7728)‬ ‭$ 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 143 of 182 ‭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 144 of 182 ‭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 145 of 182 ‭○‬ ‭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 146 of 182 ‭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 147 of 182 ‭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 148 of 182 ‭(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 149 of 182 ‭(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 150 of 182 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 151 of 182 ‭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 152 of 182 ‭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 153 of 182 ‭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 154 of 182 ‭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 155 of 182 ‭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 156 of 182 ‭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 157 of 182 ‭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 158 of 182 ‭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 159 of 182 ‭○‬ ‭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 160 of 182 ‭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 161 of 182 ‭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 162 of 182 ‭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 163 of 182 ‭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 164 of 182 ‭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 165 of 182 ‭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 166 of 182 ‭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 167 of 182 ‭●‬ ‭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 168 of 182 ‭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 169 of 182 ‭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 170 of 182 ‭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 171 of 182 MEMO To: Burlington Parks Commission From: Cindi Wight, Director, Parks, Recreation & Waterfront, Nate Lantieri, Parks Commission Chair and Kirstin Boehm, Parks Commission Vice-Chair Date: June 10, 2025 Subject: Fenced Off-Leash Areas Background: In 1999, the City started plans for the first off-leash fenced dog parks in Burlington at Starr Farm Park and Waterfront Park. The areas were completed in 2001/2002. Starr Farm received new fencing a couple of years ago and the Waterfront Dog Park was relocated in approximately 2016 to the Urban Reserve as part of the development of the A_Dog Skate Park and northern waterfront improvements. During that time, between 1999 and 2002, the City added a section in Appendix D that allowed for fenced dog parks, including Starr Farm and Waterfront Park, as well as areas set aside for non-fenced off-leash spaces. This was a pilot and was never finalized. Around 2015/2016, the City completed a site plan for Oakledge Park as part of improvements to the park. In the site plan, there is an intention for a future fenced dog park and the recent survey by the Dog Task Force showed strong interest in a fenced dog park at Oakledge. If it was determined that a fenced dog park was a good addition for Oakledge it would go on the city’s capital list as a future project when funding and time allows for completion. Appendix D vs Policy The Dog Task Force recommended a basic framework for Appendix D with more detailed information in the Off-Leash Dog Policy (OLDP). To change anything in Appendix D requires the authority of both the Commission and the Council, whereas changes to the OLDP would only require Commission authority, making it nimbler. For example, Appendix D lists the parks for fenced dog parks, but the times they are open or closed would be in the policy. Goals for the June Commission meeting • Review and vote on the recommendations of the Dog Task Force for Appendix D o Question – Does that mean there will be non-fenced off-leash areas? Page 172 of 182 ▪ Answer – No. As proposed below, it would only formalize areas where there are fenced dog parks • Review a draft timeline for the Commission resolving all recommendations related to the Parks Commission from the Dog Task Force. (No vote needed; this is just a project management tool for the Commission.) Draft Timeline for Parks and Recreation Commission to provide a proposal to City Council for: 1. Appendix D, Section 7 2. Off-Leash Dog Policy Both documents consider, as their starting point, Appendix F of the City of Burlington Dog Task Force (2023) Meeting Task/Vote June 1. Get answer to question about any liability from City Attorney 2. Vote on proposed Appendix D Section 7 3. Discussion on timeline for overall recommendation to City Council August 1. Review and Discuss Off Leash Dog Policy (on screen, line by line.) September 1. Review and Discuss Off Leash Dog Policy (on screen, line by line.) October 1. Review and Discuss Off Leash Dog Policy in context of budget, resources, and staff capacity (from BPRW Director or staff) November 1. Review and revise next steps. Proposed Update of Section 7 to City Ordinance Appendix D by the Dog Task Force (with recommended staff updates in B, C and F using strike and underline) Appendix D Sec. 7. - Off-leash dog opportunities A. Off-Leash Dog Policy. The Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Department (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 Page 173 of 182 and share enforcement authority with the animal control officer(s) as enumerated in this section. B. Designation of Areas. Areas shall be designated for the purpose of allowing dogs to be under control of the guardian owner or guardian’s owner’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: • Oakledge Park • Starr Farm Dog Park • Urban Reserve 2. Off-leash non-fenced areas are listed in the OLDP, dogs are prohibited at the following parks. Dogs in these parks must be leashed at all times: • Appletree Park • Arms Park • Baird Park • Battery Park • Bike path • Champlain Street Park • City Hall Park • Dewey Park • Ethan Allen Park • Kieslich Park except for the portion known as “Texaco Beach” • Lakeside Park • Little Park • MacKenzie Park • North Beach • Pomeroy Park • Potvin Park • Roosevelt Park • Schifilliti Park • Starr Farm Park except for the portion known as “Starr Farm Dog Park” • Water Works Park • 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 annually conduct a targeted campaign to educate the community about the City ordinances that pertain to off-leash dogs in general, and 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. Page 174 of 182 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 behavior is in violation of the City of Burlington 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: • Glass containers. • Female dogs in heat. • Excessive barking, howling, or other noise. • Bullying of other dogs. • Failure to remove feces; All feces shall be removed from the off-leash area and placed in the appropriate receptacle. • Unlicensed dogs; All dogs shall be licensed and display valid license tags. • Dangerous dogs as defined by Burlington Code of Ordinances, Article II, Section 5-13. • More than 3 dogs per person. • 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. 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. Page 175 of 182 To begin reviewing at the August 2025 meeting 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 the Burlington 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: 1. Fenced Dog Parks I.Starr Farm Park (year-round). Times. The designated area may be used year-round from 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 use at any time. iii. Oakledge Park (year-round) Times. The designated area is open for off-leash use during the hours the parking lot is open for vehicle parking. 2. Off-Leash areas (not fenced) i.North End of Leddy Beach (year-round). The area north of the northernmost entrance to Leddy Beach Times. The designated area is open for off-leash use at any time. Page 176 of 182 ii. Oakledge Cove (year-round). The area of Oakledge Park known as Oakledge Cove Times. The designated area is open for off-leash use 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 Park known as Blanchard Beach Times. The designated area is open for off-leash use at any time between November - March v. Texaco Beach (year-round). The beach area of Kieslich Park known as “Texaco” Beach. Times. The designated area is open for off-leash use at any time vi. Lower Calahan Park (year-round). The area of Calahan Park 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 use from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. vii. Open Area of Schmanska Park (year-round). The multipurpose field of Schmanska Park extending from the basketball court to the tennis court. Times. The designated area is open for off-leash use from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. viii. Open Area of Smalley Park (year-round). The multipurpose field excluding the programmed softball field. Times. The designated area is open for off-leash use from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. ix. Gravel Path of the Urban Reserve The area of the Urban Reserve 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 a. In addition to the rules set forth in Appendix D, please observe the following guidelines: i. 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. ii. Do not consume human food. iii. Do not feed other people’s dogs. b. All gates to the dog park must be closed after entering and exiting. c. 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. 3. Community Expectations for Use of Unfenced Off-Leash Areas In addition to the rules specified in Appendix D, please observe the following guidelines: Page 177 of 182 a. Ensure your dog is placed back on leash after leaving an off-leash dog area. b. 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. c. 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 a Park Program participant. 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. i. 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 ii. Commercial users will be responsible for all costs related to set-up, operations, security, and cleanup for all events. iii. Standard PRW Department requirements for reserving parks apply. 5. Public Outreach & Enforcement. . 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 Page 178 of 182 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. Page 179 of 182 Policy No. 200-07 Title: Universal Design for Playgrounds Date Reviewed by Commission: Last Reviewed: Date Approved: DRAFT Ordinance Code / Regulation: n/s Other Reference: Purpose & Need: This policy ensures that all new playgrounds commissioned by Burlington Parks, Recreation & Waterfront promote inclusivity and accessibility for individuals of all abilities and ages. To achieve this, the seven recognized principles of universal design will be applied throughout the design and construction of new or replacement playgrounds and any associated access paths or amenities. Policy for Universal Access Design in Municipal Playgrounds Scope: This policy applies to all new playground projects within municipal parks, including reconstruction or replacement of existing playgrounds and construction of new playgrounds. This policy does not apply to the replacement of parts within an existing playground. In addition, above all else, an ADA access to reconstructed playgrounds will be integrated into the scope of the playground replacement project. The 7 Principles of Universal Design: 1. Equitable Use: Universal Design is inclusive design and does not segregate; ensures that everyone has an equal opportunity to participate. 2. Flexible Use: Each individual will interact with the playground in their own way. 3. Simple and Intuitive Use: Play features should be clearly understood immediately by people of all ages, physical ability, or cognitive ability. 4. Perceptible Information: People learn in various modes so design information to appeal to many senses (Visual, auditory, experiential, etc). 5. Tolerance for Error: The ability to try something and fail safely while still being challenged. 6. Low Physical Effort: The design should take into consideration the effort required to get from one play feature to the next. The design should emphasize play, and should not require unnecessary fatigue to access and use the playground or its’ components. 7. Size and Space for Approach and Use: Consider the wide variety of body types, sizes, and abilities. Page 180 of 182 Design Standards: 1. Universal Design: Start with the 7 Principles of Universal Design. 2. Safety Standards: Ensure compliance with safety standards for playgrounds. 3. Compliance with Legal Standards: All designs must meet or exceed the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other applicable accessibility laws and guidelines. 4. Surface Materials: Ensure accessible surfacing that supports mobility devices, such as wheelchairs and walkers, while also being safe and durable. 5. Play Elements: Provide a variety of play elements meeting different abilities, including sensory panels, ground-level activities, and equipment accessible to a person using a wheelchair. 6. Pathways and Routes: Ensure all pathways leading to, within, and surrounding the playground are wide, flat, and free of obstructions. 7. Seating and Shade: Include accessible seating options and shaded areas for caregivers and children to rest or observe the playground comfortably. 8. Signage: Install clear and easy-to-read signage with Braille and visual icons where appropriate. 9. Inclusive Features: Integrate features that encourage collaborative play and interaction among children of all abilities. Approval Process: 1. Initial Planning: • Conduct community engagement sessions to gather input from diverse stakeholders, including individuals with disabilities and their families. • Develop preliminary designs applying universal design standards. 2. Accessibility Review: • Review concept designs with members of the Burlington Advisory Committee on Accessibility (BACA) for review and feedback. • Incorporate feedback from BACA into the playground scope. . 3. Final Approval: • Obtain sign-off from the Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Department Director Responsibility: The Parks, Recreation & Waterfront Department is responsible for ensuring alignment with this policy and coordinating with the BACA and other stakeholders throughout the playground design and implementation process. Effective Date: This policy is effective as of [insert date]. All playground projects initiated after this date must adhere to the standards and processes outlined herein. Page 181 of 182 Review and Updates: This policy will be reviewed every five years or as needed to align with updated accessibility standards and community needs. Page 182 of 182